Luther

]X LIBItIS

LUTHER

B Y TIIE S.4,1IE A UTIIOI
In Three Volumes. Royal 8re, each xSs. net.

HISTOIY OF IOME AID THE POPES
II THE MIDDLE AGES

Authorised English Translation, edited by LuII
Profusely Illustrated. With maps, plans, and photographs of
basilicas, mosaics, coins, aud other memorials.
"The present work might be described as a history of the
medimvai Popes, with the listory of the City of Rome and of its
civilization as a backgromd, the author's design being so to com-
bine the two stories as to produce a true picture of what Rome
was in the Middle Ages."--Athor' Preface.
The three volumes now issued represent Vohme I in the bntky
German original. This portion of Father Grisar's great enterprise
is self-contained, and the history is brought down to the epoch of
St. Gregory I.
"A valuable and interesting book, well trauslated . . . will,
we are sure, be velcomed by all students and lovers of Rome,
whether Cath,,lic or not."--T]e Tablet.
" Dr. Grisar's splendid history has long been the treasured
possession of students of mediaeval art and chrch history. We
welcome its appearance in an English translation, which has been
executed with scrupulous care and with every advantage of type,
paper, and illustration."--The Guardian.

Tl*e rl.qhts o3 tra,slatlon a,d el 'etrodtction are 'esereed

x CONTENTS

CHAPTER V. THE ROCKS OF FALSE MYSTICISM
pages 166-183
l. TAULER AND LUTHER.
Tauler's orthodox doctrine distorted by Luther to serve his
purpose. Passivity in the hands of God explained as the
absence of all effort. Luther's application of Tauler's
teaching to his own states of anxiety. His knowledge of
Tauler ; annotations to Tauler's sermons ; the German
nystics ; a " return to nothingness " the suprerne aim of the
Christian pages 166-174
2. EFFECT OF hIYsTIcISM ON LUTHER.
Advantages of its study outweighed by disadvantage.
Why Luther failed to becorne a true rnystic. Specirnens of his
rnystic utterances. His edition of the " Theologia Deutsch " ;
attitude to pseudo-Dionysits the Areopagite, St. Bernard and
Gerson ; an excerpt frorn his " Operationes in psalmos "
pages 175-183

CHAPTER VI. THE CHANGE OF 1515 IN THE LIGHT OF
THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS (1515-16) pages 184-261
1. ThE NEW PUBLICATIONS.
Deififle the first to ntilise the Cornrnentary on Romans.
Ficker's recent edition of the original. General rernarks on the
Cornrnentary. Ahn of St. Paul according to Luther pages 184-187
2. GLOOMY rlEXVS REGARDING (OD ATqD PREDESTINATION.
Luther's " more profound theology " and unconditional
predestination to hell ; God's will that the icked be damned.
God to be approached in fear and despair, not with works
and in the hope of reward. The rnystic on resioaation to.hell.
Man's will and his salvation entirely in God's hands. Ob-
jections : Is it not God's will that all be saved ? Why impose
cornrnandrnents which the will is not free to perform ? Un-
perceived inconsistencies pages 187-197
3. TItlE FIGHT AGAINST "HoLINESS-BY-VoRKs" AND TIlE OB-
SERVAINTIINES IN THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.
Luther's aversion to works and observances. His rude
description of the " Observants " and " Justiciaries." The
very word "righteousness " a cause of vexation pa 197-202
4. ATTACK ON PREDISPOSITION TO GOOD AND ON FREE 'ILL.
Human nature entirely spoiled by original sin. Being
unable to fulfil the command "Non concupiaces," we are ever
siuning rnortally. Uncertainty of salvation; the will not
free for good. Interpretation of Rona. viii. 2 f. Against
Scholasticism. In penance and confession no removal
(ablatio) of sin. pages 202-209
5. LUTHER RUDELY SETS ASIDE THE OLDER )OCTIINE OF VIRTUE
AND SIN.
The habit of sanctifying grace ; " cursed be the word
"formatum charitale'"; sin coexistent with grace in the
good rnan ; Augustine on concupiscence. " Nothing is of its
own nature good or bad " ; tlm Occa.rnist acceptation-theory
against the " Aristotelian " definition of virtue and the
scholastic doctrine that virtues and vices are qualities of the
soul pages 209-213

CONTENTS xi

IREPARATION FOR USTIFICAION.
Christ's grace does all, and yet mau disposes himself for
justification. Man's self-culture. Inconsistencies explained
by reminiscences of his early Catholic training pages 213-214

APPROPRIATION OF THE :][GHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST BY
HUMILITY--IEITHER "I?AITH ONLY " NOR ASSURANCE OF
SALVATION.
Imputation pplied to justietion. .other's righteo-
heSS *s imputed to us nd beeon]es ours ; s remains, but 
no longer eeounted ; our inability %o ow -hether Christ's
righteousuess has been imputed to us. Advantage of fear.
" He who renounces his o self and willingly faces death
and damnation " is truly humble, and in such humility is
safety. Faith not yet substituted for htmility. Passivity
again emphasised pages 214-222

SUBJECTIVISII AND CHURCI AUTHORITY. STORM AND STRESS.
The back place already taken in Luther's mind by the
Church and her teaching-office ; his preference for a theology
of his own invention. Our duty of not, judging Luther by the
later Tridentine decrees. }Iis Catholic sentiments on the
hierarchy ; denounces abuses whilst respecting the rights of
the Roman Church ; desiderates a reduction of festivals ; re-
proves Bishops for insisting on their rights instead of
rejoicing to see them itffringed. On listening to the inner
voice pages 223-230

9. THE MYSTIC IN THE CO!IMENTARY ON
Luther's ndsapprehension of Tauler and other mystics
clearly proved in the Commentary. Quietisrn. The " Spark
in the Sou]." The " Theology of the Cross." The " iNight
of the Soul." Readiness for hell the joy of the truly
Christ and Paul the Apostle, two instances of such readiness
pages 230-240

I 0. THE COMMENTARY ON POMANS AS A %'ORK OF PEL][GION AND
LEARNING.
Its witness to the unsettled state of the writer's mind.
Texts and conn]entaries ut.ilised ; neglect of Aquinas's
Conm]entary ; the author's style ; obscenity and paradox ;
a tilt at the philosophers ; the character of the work rather
spoilt by unnecessary polemics. Appeal to Augustine.
Misuse of theological terms. " The word of God is every
word which proceeds from the mouth of a good man." Con-
tradiction a criterion of truth. All the prophets against
observances. Unconscious self-contradiction on the subject
of freedom. Whether any progress is apparent in the course
of the Commentary. Comparison of Luther's public utter-
antes with those in the Commentary. Some excerpts from
the Commentary on Hebrews ._... pages 241-261

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NoTE.--The following is an alphabetical list of the books,
etc., referred to in an abbreviated form in the com'se of ore" work,
the title under which they are quoted in each case figuring first.
For the Bibliography of Luther generally, we may refer to
the following: E. G. Vogel, " Bibliographia Lutheri," Halle,
1851; I. A. Fabricius, " Centifolium Lutheranum," 2 parts,
Hamburg, 1728-1730 ; Win. Matrenbrecher, " Studien und
S -ldzzen," Leipzig, 1874, l). 205 ft. (a good list of the studies on
Luther and his work). The articles on Luther in the " I)eutsche
Biogral)hie," ifi the Catholic "Kirchenlexikon " (2nd ed.),
and the Protestant "Realenzyklopfidie fiir Theologie," etc.,
also provide more or less detailed bibliographies. So also
do W. MSler, " Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte," vol. 3, ed.
by Kawerau (3rd ed., particularly p. 4 ff.) ; HergenrSther, "Lehr-
buch der Kirchengeschichte," vol. 3, 3rd ed., by J. P. Kitsch
(particularly 1 ). 4 ff.) ; Janssen-Pastor, " Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes," etc. (in the lists at the commencement of
each vol., particularly vols. ii. and iii.). The bibliogral)hical data
added by various writers in the prefaces to the various works of
Luther in the new Breimar complete edition are not only colgious
but also often quite reliable, for instance, those on the German
Bible.

" Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte
Luthers, Zugleich ein Supplement zu den bisherigen
Sammlungen seines Briefwechsels," ed. by Th. Kolde,
Gotha, 1883.
"Analecta Lutherana et 5Ielanchthoniana," see Mathesius,
" Aufzeichnungen."
" Archly fiir Reformationsgeschichte. Texte und Untersuch-
ungen. In Verbindung mit dem Verein fiir Reformations-
geschichte," ed. W. Friedensburg. Berlin, later Leipzig,
1903-1904 ff.

Balan, P., " 5fonumenta reformationis Lutherane ex tabulariis
S. Sedis secretis, 1521-1525," Ratisbone, 1883, 1884.
Barge, H., "Andreas Bodenstein yon Karlstadt," 2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1905.
]eatus Ihenanus, see Correspondence.

X

xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berger, A., "Martin Luther in kultttrgeschichtlicher Darstellung."
2 vols., Berlin, 1895-1898.
Bezold, F. yon, "Gesdfichte der deutsdmn Reformation,"
Berlin, 1890.
"Bibliothek des Kgl. Preussischen Historischen Institut.s in
Rom," lome, 1905 ft.
Blaurer, see Correspondence.
BShmer, H., " Luther im Liehte der neueren Forsehung" (from
" Natur und Geisteswelt," No. lla), Leipzig, 1906, 2nd ed.,
1910.
Brandenburg, E., " Luthers Ansehauung yon Staat und Gesell-
sctmft " (Schriftcn des Vereins fiir leforlnationsgeschichte),
Hft. 70, Halle, 1901.
Braun, W., " Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben
und Lehrc," Berlin, 1-908.
" Briefe," see Letters.
" Briefwecbsel," see Correspondence.
Bl'ieger, Th., "Aleander und Luther. Die vervollstiindigten
Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuclmngen fiber den Worm-
set" Reichstag," I, Gotha, 188.
Burkhardt, C. A., " Geschichte der sichsischen Kirchen- und
Schulvisitationen yon 152-155," Leipzig, 1879.

Calvini, I., " Opera qum supersunt omnia, ediderunt O. Braun,
E. Cunitz, F,. Beuss," 59 vol. (29-87 in the " Corpus
Beformatoruln"), Brunsvige, 1863-1900.
Cardauns, L., " Zur Geschichte der -kirchlichen Unions- und
Reformbestrebungen von 1538-152" ("Bibliothek des
Kgl. Preuss. I-Iistorischen Instituts in Rein," vol. 5), Rome,
1910.
-- see " Nuntiaturberichte."
Cochlmus, I., " Conmmntaria de a(.tis et scriptis M. Lutheri . . .
ab a. 1517 usque ad a. 1537 conscripta," Moguntim, 1549.
(" Colloquia," ed. Bindseil), Bindseil, H. E., " D. Martini Lutheri
Colloquia, Meditationes, Consolationes, Iudicia, Sententim,
Narrationes, Responsa, Facetim e codice ms. Bibliothecm
Orphanotrophei Ilalensis cure perpetua collatione editionis
Rebenstocldane edita et prolegomenis indicibusque in-
structa," 3 voll., Lemgovie et Detmoldm, 1863-1866.
("Commentarius in Epist. ad Galat."), "M. Lutheri Com-
mentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas," ed. I. A. Irmischer,
3 yell., Erlangm, 183 sq.

xxiv

BIBLIOGRAPHY

" Table-Talk," see " Tischreden."
" Tischreden oder Colloquia M. Luthers," ed. Aurifaber, 2 vols.,
Eisleben, 1564-1565.
(Tischreden ed. FSrstemann), F6rstemann, K. ]., " Dr. Martin
Luthers Tischreden oder Colloquia. Nach Aurifabers erster
Ausgabe mit sorgfilt.iger Vergleichung sowohl der Stangwald-
ischen als der Sehmccerschen Rcdaktion," 4 vols. (4th vol.
ed. with assistance of H. E. Bindseil), Leipzig, 1844-1848.

Ulenberg, C., " Historia de Vita... Lutheri, Melanchthonis,
Matth. Flacii llly-ici, G. Maioris et Andr. Osiandri," 2 yell.,
Colonim, 1622.

(" Vita Lutheri "), "Melanchthonis Philit)l)i Vita Lutheri," in
"Vitae, quatuor reformatorum," Berolini, 1841. Also in
" Corp. lef." 6, p. 155 sq. and previously as Preface to the
2nd vol. of the Wittenbe Latin edition of Luther's works.

Walther, W., " F[ir Luther, Wider Rein. Handbuch der Apolo-
get.ik Luthers mad der Ieformation den r6mischen Anklagen
gegeniiber," Halle a/S., 1906.
Weiss, A. M., O.P., " Lutherl)sycllologie als Schlfissel zur Luther-
legende. Denifles Untersuchungen kritisch nachgeprfift,"
Mayence, 1906; 2nd ed., 1906.
-- " Luther und Luthertum," 2, see Denifle.
(" SVerke," Erl. ed.), " M. Luthers Silntliche SVerke," 67 vols., ed.
J. G. Plochmann and J. A. Irlnischer, Erlangen, 1826-1868,
vols. 1-20 and 24-26, 2nd ed., ed. L. Enders, Frankfm't a/M.,
1862 ft. To the Erl. ed. belong also the Latin " Opp. Lat.
exeg.," the " Commentar. in Epist. ad. Galat.," the " Opp.
Lat. var.," and the Correspondence (Briefechsel) ed. by
Enders (see under these four titles).
-- Veim. ed., " Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamt-
ausgabe," Weimar, 1883 ft., ed. J. Knaake, G. Kawerau,
1 ). Pietseh, N. Miiller, K. Drescher and V. SValther. So far
(Jan., 1911) there have appeared vols. 1-9: 10, l, 2, 3;
11-16; 17, 1; 18-20; 23-29; 30, 2;3; 32; 33; 34, l, 2;
36; 37. "Deutsche Bibel (1522-1541)," 2 vols. with
introductions.
--Altenburg ed., 1661-1664, l0 vols. (German); reprinted
Leipzig, 1729-1740, 22 vols.
--Eisleben ed. ("Supplement zur Vittenberger und Jenaer
Ausg."), ed. J. Aurifaber, 2 vols., 1564-1565.

BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv
"Werke," Halle ed., ed. J. G.Valch, 24vols., 1740-1753 (German),
"/Xeue Ausgabe im Auftrage des Ministeriums der deutschen
evangelisch-lutherischen Synode von Missouri, Ohio und
andern Staaten," St. Louis, Me., Zwickau, Schriftenverein,
22 vols., 1880-1904, 23 (index), 1910.
-- Jena ed., 8 vols. of German and 4 vols. of Latin writings, 1555-
1558 ; re-edited later.
--la'ittenberg ed., 12 vols. of German (1539-1559) and 7 vols.
of Latin writings (1545-1558).
 " Auswahl," ed. Buchwld, Kacrau, KSstlin, etc., 8 vols.,
3rd ed., Brunswick and Berlin, 1905 ft. ; also 2 supl>le-
mentary vols.
Wiedcmann, Th., " Johann Eck, ;Professor der Theologie an der
Universitiit Ingolstadt," Ratisbon, 1865.
"Vorks (Luther's), see " Vcrke."

" Zeitsehrift fiir katholische Theologie," Innsbruck, 1877 ft.
"-- ftir Kirchengesehiehte," ed. Th. Brieger, Gotha, 1877 ft.
"-- fiir Theologic und Kirche," Tiibingen, 1890 ft.
" Zwinglii H. Opera. Completa edit.io prima cur. II. Sehulero
et H. Sehulthessio," 8 voll. (voll. 7 et 8 " epistolm"),
Turiei, 1828-1842. In "Corpus P, eformatorum" (2 vols.),
veil. 88-89, Berlin and Leipzig, 19(5-1908.

INTRODUCTION xxxiii
the surface" and a mere "ingenious make-believe,"
employed only in order the better to de.ccive the reader.
They took it. upou themselves to declare it. impossible that
certain charges made agaiust Luther should have been
minimised by mc iu real earnest, and various good aspects of
his character adnfittcd frankly and with conviction. Such
discoveries, as far-fetched as they arc wanting in courtesy,
may bc left to take care of themselves, though I shall not bc
surprised to bc again made the object of similar personal
insults on the a.ppcarance of this book.
I may, howex:cr, assure Protestant readers in general,
whose cstccm for Luther is great and who may bc dis-
agreeably affected by certain passages in this book which are
new to them, that the idea of offcuding them by a single
word was very far from my intention. I ant well aware, and
the many years I have passed at home in a couutry of which
the population is partly Catholic and partly Protcsta.nt have
made it still clearer to nlc, how Protestants carry out in all
good faith and accordiug to their lights the practice of their
rcligiou. Merely iu vicxv of these, and quite apart from the
gravity of the subject itself, everything that could be looked
on as a challenge or au iusult should surely bc avoided as a
stupid blunder. I would therefore ask that the book bc
judged impartially, and without allowing feelings, iu them-
selves quite natural, to interfere unduly ; let the reader ask
himself simply whether each assertion is, or is not, proved
by the facts and witnesses. As regards the author, hovever,
he would ask his readers to remember that ve Catholics (to
quote the words of a. Swiss writer)" are not. prevented by
the viev we hold of the Church, from rejoicing over all that
our separated brethren throughout the vorld have preserved
of the inheritance of Christ, and display in their lives, that,
on the eoutrary, our best. and sincerest esteem is for the bona
tides of those who think otherwise than we " (" Sehwei-
zerisehe Krehenzetun, 1910, No. 52, December 29).
With regard to " inconvenient facts," Friedrieh Paulsen
wrote in his " Gesehiehte des gelehrten Unterriehts " (I",
1896, p. 196) : " If Protestant. historians had not yielded so
nmeh to the inclination to slur over iueonvenient facts,
Jaussen's ' I-Iistory of the German People ' [English trans.,
1901-1909] would not. have made the impression it. did
surely an 'inconvenient fact' for ninny Protestants." The

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

pelled to have recourse to the older German and Latin collections
of the stone, together with the original notes mentioned above
(p. xx.). Of the German collection, in addition to the work of
Aurifaber, the "Tischreden " of FSrstemann-13indseil and of the
Erlangen edition (vols. lvii.-lxii.) have been used, and, for the
Latin collection, I3indseil's careful edition (see 17. xvi. f.).
From among the large number of lives of Luther which have
been consulted I shall mention only the two latest, one by a
Catholic, Denifle, and the other by two Protestants, K6st]in and
I.weratl.

It is hardly ncccssary to say, that I brought to the study
of tile two last-mentioned works an absolutely independent
judgment. The information--universally acknowledged
a.s extremely vahmblcsupplied by Deniflc's ponderous
volumes on thc relation bctwecn Luther's theology and that
of the Middlc Ages, was of considerable service to me. To
K6stlin's biography of Luthcr, eontimcd bv Kawcrau, I am
indebted for some useful data. with regard to the history and
chronology of Luther's writings.
This most detailed of the Protestant biographies, and the
most frequently quoted by me, offers this further advantage
that in its judgment of Luther, his life's work, and his
personal qualitics, it oeeupics a. middlc line between two
Protestant extremes. K6stlin having bclongcd to the so-
called intcrmcdiary school of theology, the author, in his
delineation of Luther, avoids alike certain excesses of tile
conservatives and the caustic, subtilising criticism of the
rationalists. There is no such thing as a simple " Protestant
opinion" on Luther; and l(6stlin's intermediary trea.tment
is tile one least likely to lead a. Catholic to commit an in-
justice against either of the extreme parties in Protestantism.
Does a Catholic opinion exist with regard to Luther's
personal qualities and his fate ? Does the ninth-discussed
work of Denifle represent tile " Catholic feeling " ? That it
does has frequently been asserted by those most strongly
opposed to DeniIle. Yet Dcnifle's manner of regarding
Luther was, on the whole, by no means simply " Catholic,"
hut lm'gely biassed by his individual opinion, as indeed has
ever been the appreciation by Catholic authors of the
different points of Imther's character. Only on those points
could Dcnifle's opinion strictly be styled " Catholic " where
he makes the direct a.eknowlcdgment of dogmas and the
essential orga.nisttion of the Church the standard for

INTR ODUCTION xxxix
Luther's views and reforms ; and in this he certainly had
on his side the rclmdiation of Luther by all Catholics. A
" Catholic opinion," in any other sense than the above, is
the sheerest nonsense, and the learned l)ominican vould
certainly have been tile last to make such a claim on his
own behalf. The prescit writcr 1)rotcsts beforehand against
any such intcrl)rctatiol being l)laccd 011 his work. Tile
following statements, whether they differ frOlU or agree with
those of Denifle, must be looked on as a mere attempt to
express what appears to the author to be clearly contained
in the sources whence his information comes. In all purely
historical questions, in questions of fact and their inferences,
tile Catholic investigator is entirely free, and decides purely
and silnply to the best of his knowh'dgc alKl conscience.
A list of Luther's writings with tile volumes in which they
occur in the last two editions, as well as a dctaih.d index of
subjects and names at the end of the sixth volume, will
facilitate the use of this work.
The author would like to take this opportunity of ex-
pressing his most cordial thanks to the Royal Bavarian
Library of Munich, and also to the University Library in
that city, for the friendly a.ssistanec rendered hiln. These
rich sources of information have afforded him, during his
frequent and lengthy visits to tile Bavarian capital, what
the libraries of Rome, which he had been in the habit of
consulting f>r his IIistory of Rome and the Popes of the
Middle Ages (Eng. trans., 3 vols., 1911-12), eoukl not supply
on the subject here treated. The author will now return to
the exploitation of the treasures of lolne and to the task he
originally undertook and hopes to bring out, in the near
future, a further volume of the IIistory of Rome.
THE AUTHOR.
MUNICH, January 1, 1911.

V{L. I
IUTHER THE MONK

6 LUTHER TIIE MONK
comfortablc household, furnishing him ith food and lodging.
Luther, in his old age, recalled with great gratitude the
memory of his noble benefactress. 1
As a boy hc had experienced but little of life's pleasures
and received small kindness from the world ; bu now life's
horizon brightened somewhat for the growing youth.
Full of enthusiasm for the career mal)l)cd ou for him by
his father, that, namely, of the Law, he went in the summer
of 1501 to the University of Erfurt. ]Iis parents' finaucial
circumstances had meanwhile somewhat improved as the
result of his father's industry in the mines at Mansfeld.
The assidu()us student was therefore no longer dependent on
the help of strangers. Accordi t) some writers he took
up his al)odc in St. George's II-stcl. z IIc was entered in the
Matri('ulatit)n ll(.gister of the Erfurt lligh School as " Mar-
tinus Ludhcr cx Man.felt," md for some considerable time
after he continued t() spell his family name as Luder, a form
which is also to be f(amd Ul) to the bt.gimfing of the seven-
tcenth c('nturv in the case of others (Liidcr, Luider, Lcudcr).
From 1512 hc 1)cgan. however, t() sign himself " Luthcrus "
or " Luther. ''a The lectures on philosophy, understood in the
widest sense of the term, which he lirs attended were
dt.livcrcd at the University of Erfurt 1)y compartivcly
capable teachers, some of whom belonged to the Augustinian
Order. The Catholic spirit of the Middle Ages still per-
moated the teaching and the whole life ()f the little republic
of lcarnin'. As yet, learning was still cast in the mould of
the traditional scholastic method, and the men, equally
devoted to the Church and to their 1)rofcssion, who were
Luthtr's principal teachers, 3odocus Trutfcttcr of Eiscnach
and Bartholomew Arnoldi of Usingcn, a later an Augustinian,
were well versed in the scholastic spirit of the day.
Alongside the tra(litiomd teaching of the schools there
already existed in Erfurt and the ncighbourhood another,
viz. that of the IIumanists, or so-called poets, which, though
largely at variance with Scholasticism, was cultivated by
many ()f the best minds (,f the day. Luther, with his vivacity
of thought and feeling, couhl not long remaia a stranger to
a MaHesius, " Historien," BI. 3.
2 K6stlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 744, n. 1, p. 31.
z Ibid., 1, p. 754, n. 2, p. 166.
a N. Paul,, "Bart.holomus Arnoldi yon Usingen," Freiburg
Breisgau, 1893.

INWARD UNREST
througfi tfic merits of thc Redeemer, and after earnest
preparation of thc soul, truc forgiveness may bc obtained,
and that through the cross of Christ, and tfirough it alone,
wc can do all things necessary, cvcn iu thc midst of the
bittcrcst assaults. .
Luther, however, too often responded to such admonitions
only by cherishing his own views thc more. ]Ic continued
morbidly to torment himself. This self-torture, at any ratc
during the first enthusiastic days of his rcligious lift', may
have assumed the form of pious scrul)]cs , but. later it gradu-
ally took on another clmractcr under the influence of bodily
affections. ]Ic did not, likc other scrupulous 1)crsons, regain
his pcacc of mind, because, led away by his distorted and
excited fa.ncy, hc liked, as hc himsdf admits, to dwell on
the (loubts as to whether the counsds he received were not
illusivn and dcccl)tion. Sad cxpcrienee taught him into
what devious paths and to " what a. state of inward unrest,
self-will and self-sufficiency are capable of leading a man. ''
The Superior or Vicar-General of the Saxon or German
Augustinian Congregation to which Luther bchmgcd was
a,t that time Johann Staupitz, a man highly csteemcd in
the world of learning and culture.
IIe rcqucntly visited Erfurt and had thus the opportunity
of talking to the new brother whom the University had
given fiim, and who nm.y well have attracted his attention
by his careworn look, his restless rammer and his peculiar,
bright, deep-set eyes. Staupitz soon began to have a. great
esteem for him. l-Ie had great influence over Luther, though
unable to free lfim from the strange spirit, already too
deeply rooted. To the sad doubts concerning his own salva-
tion whiefi Brother Martiu laid before him, Staupitz replied
by exhorting him as follows in the spirit of the Catholic
Church: " Why torment yoursclf with such thoughts and
broodings ? Look at the wounds of Christ and IIis Blood
shed for you. There you will see your predestination to
heaven shining forth to your comfort. ''= Quite rightly he
impressed upon him, in the matter of confcssi(m and penance,
that the princilml thing was to arouse in himself the will
to love God and righteousness, and that he must not 1)ausc
before unfiealthy imaginations of sin. The lines of thought,
 To Leiffer, ibid.
 "Lutheri Opp. Lat. exeg.," 6, p. 296.

12 LUTHER THE MONK
however, which the imaginative and emotional young man
laid bare to him, were probably at times somewhat strange,
and it is Luther himself who relates that Staul)itz once said
to him : " Master Martin, I fail to understand that."
In spite of his inward fears Luther l)ersevercd, which
goes to prove the strength of will which vas always one of
his characteristics. As the Order ws satisfied with him, hc
was admitted a.t the end of the year of novitiate to pro-
fcssion 1)y the taking of the tbrcc Vows of thc Order. IIc
received on this occasion thc name of Augustine, lint always
1)referred to it his 1)al)tisnml name of Martin. The text of
thc Vows which hc read ah,ud solemnly 1)eforc thc altar,
according to custom, in the presence of the Prior Winand of
])iedenhofen and Ml the 1)rothers, was as follows: " I,
]3tother Augustine Luder, make l)rofession and vow obedi-
ence to Al,nighty God, Blessed Mary ever Virgin and to
thee Father Prior. in thc namc of, and as rcl)rcscnting the
Superior-General of the IIermits of St. Augustine, and his
mwccssors, likcwisc to lix c without property and in chastity
until death, according to thc lhflc (,f our IIoly Father
Au.ustme. The young monk, vohmtarilv and aftcr due
consideration, had thus taken upon himself the threefold
yoke of Christ by the three Vows, i.e. by the most solemn
and sacred promise which it is possible to make on earth.
lie had l)omd himself by a sacred oath to God to prepare
himself for heaven by treading a 1)ath of life in which per-
feetion is sought in the carrying out of the evangelical
counsels of our Saviour, and throughout his life to combat
the teml)tations of the world with the weapons of poverty,
chastity and obedience.
Such was the solcnm Vow, which, latter on, he declared to
have been M)solutely worthless.
2. Fidelity to his new calling; his temptations
After making his l)rofcssion the young religious was set
by his Erfurt superiors to study theology, which was taught
1)rivately in the monastery.
The theological fare served up by the teachers of the Order
was not very inviting, consisting as it largely did of the nacre
verbalism of a Scholasticism in decay. With the exception
of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the students at the
Erfurt monastery did not study the theological works of the

HIS TEMPTATIONS 19

usually assail so bitterly the lllollk who is striving after per-
fection. Satan generally tempts him but slightly, and, more
especially as regards tcmptatitms of the flesh, the lmvice is
left in eomlmralive peace, " i,dt'ed, nothing ,plears t him
more agreeahle than chastdy. But, aftt'r that time,
so he tells us, he himself had to bewii ot mlv fears and
doubts, but also numberless temptatitms which " his age
brought along with it.""- lie felt himself at the some time
troubled with duhts as to his vocation and by " violent
movemets of hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride."
" I vas unable to rid myself of the weight ; horrible and
terrifying thoughts (' horreodce el tcrrifiece eogitctiooes '),
stormed in upon me. ''a Temptations t despair of his salva-
tion and to blaslheme God tormeutcd him more espeei:flly.
Ile had often wondered, he stays on one occasion to his
father Ilms, whether he was the oMv mn whom the devil
thus attacked and persecuted,  and later he comforted
who was in great anxiety with the words : " When beset
with the greatest temptations I could scarcely retain my
bodily powers, hardly kee l) my breath, and no one was ab]c
to eomfirt me. All those to whom I eomlflined nnswered
' I know nothing about it,' so that I used to sigh ' Is it I
alone who am plagued with the spirit of sorrow  ' ''
Ile thinks that he learned the nature of these temptatios
from the PsMms, and that he had by experience made close
acquaintance with the verse of the Bible : " Every night I
will vash my bed: I will water my couch with my tears "
(Ps. vi. 7). Satan with his temptations was the murderer
of mankind; but, notwithstanding, one nmt not despair.
Luther here speaks of visions granted him, and of angels
who after ten years brought him consolation in hissolitude ;
these statements we shall examine later.
Elsewhere he again recounts how Staupitz encouraged
him and the manner in which he interpreted his advice
reveals a singular self-esteem. Staupitz had pointed out to
him the interior trials endured by holy men, who had been
purified by temptation, and, after having been humbled.
1 " Opp. Lat. vat.," 6, p. 364 ; "Verke," Veim. ed., 8. p. 660.
 "Opp. Lat. exe., p. 19, 100.
 1bid.
t To Hier. Veller (July ?), 1530, Briefec el, 8, p. 160.
 " Opp. Lat. vat., 6, pp. 240 :  erke, Veim. ed., 8, p. 574.
 " Coil.," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295, on Hieronymus Veller.

HIS FIRST LECTURES 21
disapl)ointlncnt he says he underwent--that all works of
the Papists, cvcn those of the most pious, holy and mortified,
wcrc absolutely worthless for l)rocuring truc peace for the
soul thirsting after salvation, and that the Catholic Church
was quite unable by her teaching to reconcile a soul with
God. IIistory merely tells us that he vas all observant
mollk who kept tile Rule, and. for that reason, enjoyed tile
confidence of his superiors. 1
Relying upon his ability and his achicvclncnts, Staupitz,
the Vicar, smmnoncd him ill the autumn of 1508, to Wittcn-
bclX, in order that hc lnight there contilmc his studies and
at the same tilnc COlmnCnCC his work as a teacher on a
hulnblc scale.
As Master of Philosophy Luther gave lectures on the
Ethics of Aristotle and probably also on Dialectics, though,
as hc hilnsclf says, hc would have l)rcfcrrcd to lnount the
chair of Theology, for which hc already esteemed hilnsclf
fitted, and which, with its higher tasks, attracted him nmch
lnorc than philosol)hy. Ill March, 1509, hc was ah'cady the
recipient of a theological dcgrcc and entered the Faculty as
a " Baccalaurcus Biblicus." This authoriscd him to deliver
lectures on the I[olv Scriptures at the University.
Ill tile salne 3"ear. however, prol)ably ill the late autulnn,
Luther's career at Wittenberg was interrupted for a tilne
by his being sent back to Erfurt. With regard to the reasons
for this uothing is known with certainty, but a movement
which was going forward ill tile Congregation nlay have been
the cause. Iu the question of the stricter observance which
had recently been raised among the Augustiuians, and which
will be treated of below, Luther had not sided with the
Wittenberg lnonastery but with his older friends at Erfurt.
He was opposed to certain administrative regulations pro-
rooted by Staupitz, which, ill the opinion of lllally, threat-
ened the future discipline of the Order. At any rate, he had to
return to Erfurt just as he was about to become " Seu-
tentiarius," i.e. to be prolnoted to the olfiee of lecturing oil
the "Magister Sententiariuln." For these lectures, too, he
had already qualified himself. IIis second stay at Erfurt
and the part--so important for the understanding of his
later life--which he played ill the disputes of the Order,
 See below, volume vi., eap. xxxvii., where these questions are
tread more fully.

"THE SINS OF MY YOUTH" 27
opponent accuses him openly of having indulged in the
grossest vice during his academic years, and mentions as
his infornmnt one of the COluradcs who had, later on,
aeeompanied Luther to the gates of the lnonastery. 1 He
says nothing, 1)cl'haps, indeed, he knew nothing more
definite, and with regard to Luther's life in religion, he is
mml)lc t.o adduce anything to his discredit.
But yet another of Luther's later adversaries has strong
words for our hero's early life. lIis testimony, which has
not so fa.r been dealt with, must be treated of here because
such charges, if well f()uuded, doubtless contribute much
to the 1)syehologieal exl)lanatiou of the 1)roecsscs going for-
ward in Luther. This testimony is given 1)y IIicronvluus
Eraser of l)resden, who, it is true, was himself 1)y no means
spotless, and who, on that account, was roundly rel)rinmaded
by the ma.n he had attaekc(l. IlL his rejoinder to Luther, a
palnphlct 1)ublishcd in 1520, and the only one preserved,
he says : " Was it necessary on account of my letter that
you should hold up to 1)ublie execration my former deviatious
which are indeed, for the most part, lnere iuventious ?
What do you think has come to my ears concerning your
own eriluinal deeds (' fla.gilia, ') ? " lie will be silent about
them, he says, beeause he does not wish to return evil for
evil, but be eontilmes : "That you also fell, I nmst attribute
to the Salne cause which brought about my own fall, namely,
the want of lmblie discipline in our days, so that young lncn
live as they please without fear of punishlnent and do just
what they like. '' We must remember that at Erfurt
Elnser aud Luther had stood in the relation of teacher and
disciple. His words, like those of Dmgersheim written from
Leipzig, voice tile opinion on Luther later on current in
the hostile University eirelcs of Erfurt.
When Luther in his later )'ears speaks of the " sins of
his youth," this, iu his grotesquely anti-catholic vocabulary,
mcaus tile good works of his monastic life, even the ech'bra-
tion of IIoly Mass. Once, however, at the end of his tract
on the Last Sul)per (1528), a speaking of the silts of his youth,
 " Dadelung des 13ekenntnus," p. 15", 16.
- " A venatione Luteriana :Egocerotis assertio," s.l.e.a.E, 5'.
a "Werke, ' Erl. ed.. 30, p. 372 : " Although I have been a great,
gTIevous, shameful sinner and have wasted and spent my youth
damnably," yet his greatest sins were that he had been a monk and
had said Mass.

LUTHER TIIE MONK

assumption to which Luther's friends still cling with such
affection, namely, that frolll the very commencement of his
journey to Rome he had been " haunted by the Bible text
concerning justification by faith," at a time " when he
still was striving to serve God by his own works," must be
struck out of history as a mere fiction. 
At Rome Luther's conviction of the authority of the
][oly See was in no wise shaken, in spite of what some people
have thought. All the scandals had not been able to achieve
this. As late as 1516 hc was still 1)reaching in entire accord-
ancc with the traditional doctrine of the ('hureh on thc
l))vcr of the Pal)aey, and it is worth while to quote his
vr(ls in oler to shrew the ('atholic thoughts which engaged
him vhih, wan(lcring through the streets of Rome. " If
Christ had not entrusted all 1)owcr to one man, the ('hurch
w,,uld not have ])c('n pcrfc('t 1)ccausc there would havc
('(. m or(h,r and each one would have been able to shy hc
was l('(l by the lhdv Spirit. This is what the heretics did,
('a('h ore" setting u l) his ovn princil)lc. In this way as many
('lmr(.hcs arose as tht'rc wcre ]wads. Christ theft,fore wills,
in r(h'r that all may bc ass(,mbl(.d in one unity, that His
Pt)w(,r bc cx('rcis(,d by one man to whom also IIc commits
it. ]Ic has, however, mmlc this Povcr so strong that
] Ic looses all the 1)ovcrs of ]h'll (without injury) against it.
]Ic says : ' The gates of ]Icll shall not 1)rcvail against it,'
as though lie said : ' They will fight against it but never
)vcroomc it,' so that in this wa.v it is made manifest that
this l)Ow,r is in reality from G)d and m)t from man. Where-
h,rc whoever breaks away from this unity and ordcr of the
P)w('r, ]ct him m)t bost of great cnlightcmncnt and won-
(l(.rful v,rks, as our Pieards and other heretics do, ' for nmch
b(,tt(,r is (,bcdicncc than the victims of fl)ols who know not

 On his own account Paul was only a boy of eleven when he heard
this statement from his father ; it is therefore very doubtful whether
he understood and renembercd it correctly. Luther wouhl strely
ha.re returned to the subject more frequently had it really played so
great a part in his development, especially as he speaks so often of
journey to lome. O. Scheel in his recent thesis on the development of
Luther down to the time of the conclusion of the lectures on the Epistle
to the Romans (" Schriften des Vereins f(ir Reformationsgesch, Nr.
] 00, Jubilumsschrift," 1910, pp. t;1- 230), quite correctly says : "" It is
pos.ible that his son, knowing of what importance ]R.omans i. 17 had
become for Luther, my at a lxter date have combined these words
with the Roman incident." In any case, the objections with regard to
this incident are so grent thxt little can be nmde out of it..

ItUMANIST FRIENDS 41
the ancient classics which he loved, but there was a great.
difference between this and the being in COml)letc intellectual
communion with the later lImnanists, whose aims were in
many respects opposed to lhe Church's. Thanks to the
practical turn of his mind, the study of the ela.ssies, which
he occasionally continued later, never engaged his attention
or fascinated him to the extent it did certain l[unmnists of
the Rcnaissanec, who saxv in the revival of classic Paganism
the salvation of mankind. As a young l)rofcssor at the
University he was not, however, able to eSCnl)e entirely
the influence of the liberalism of the age, with its one-sided
and ill-considered opposition to so many of the (,lder
elements of culture, an (,l)position which might easily
prove as detrimental as a 1)lind and I)iasst'd defcnec )f the
older order.
It is not necessary to (lem(mslrate here how dangerous
a spirit of ('hange and ]ibertinism was I)cing iml)(.rted in
the I)ooks (,f the Italian lhtmaists, or I)y the German
students who had attcndc(i their lcclurcs.
With rcgar(i to Luther l)crsonally, wc know that hc not
only had some connection with Mutian, the leader of a
ntm'ement, whi(.h at that time was still chielly literary,
also that .h,hann Lang at once f,rwarded to Mutian a
lecture against the m,rals of the " little Saints " of his Order
delivered I)y Luther at Gotha in 1515.  Luther also excused
himself in a very respectful letter to this leader of the
llumanists for not having calld on him uhcn passing
through (aotha in 1516.  Luther's most i.timatc friend,
Lang, through who,hi hc seems t() have entered into a cer-
tain exchange of ideas with lhmmnism, was an enthusiastic
lIumanist and possessed of great literary connections.
Lang, for his part, Sl)caks highly to Mutian of the assistance
rendered him in his studies by Luther,. a There can therefore
bc no doubt that Luther was no stranger to the cfh)rts
the lIumanists, to their bold and incisive criti('ism (ff the
traditional methods, to their new idealism and their spirit
of independence. Many of lhc ideas which lillcd the air
those days had doubtless an attraction for and exerted

Kolde, " I)ie deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 263 ; '" Brief-
wechsel," l, p. 36, n. 5.
Letter of May 29, 1516, '" Briefwechsel," l, p. 35.
Lang to 5Iutian, May 2, 1515, '" 13riefvechsel," l, p. 36, n. 5.

42 LUTIIER TIlE MONK
an inlluencc (,n the (q)cn-hcartcd, receptive disposition
of the talented monk.
Luthcr's fricldship with Spa.latin, which datcd from his
Erfurt days, must also bc taken into account in this rcgard.
For Spalatin, who came as tutor and lrea.chcr in 1508 [o
the Curt of thc Elcetor of Saxony, was very chscly allicd
in spirit xxith the l[umanists of Erfurt and Gtha. It was
hc who askcd Lutht'r for his opinion rcspcctig the famous
dislmle of thc Cologne 1,'acuity with the lImnanist llcuchlin,
a luarrcl which cnagcd lhc symlathy of schlal'S and
of t.dm.alio lhroughout the h.ngth and bl'cadih
l,ulhcr, in his reply, which dates frm Jammry or February,
151 1.. had nt lhat tinge no hesitation in cmphatically taking
the side of llcuchlin, xvho, hc dt'c]arcd, lOSscsscd his love
and cstccm. (h:d. hc says, w,uld carry
spilt [' lht' dclcrmincd qposition of mc thousand times
lhmsand ('ohgne Imrghcrs, and hc adds mcaningly that
ihcrc wcrc lmc]l lOre important matters with the Church
xhich ccdt.d reform ; they wcre " stra.inin at nats and
swallowing camels. '' The conservative attitude of the
aulhrilics at ('ologne was at tlmt time not at all to his tastc.
N,t hm after I,uthcr writes vcrv strongly to Slmlatil,
again in favour of llcuchlin, against Ortwin de Grtcs of
('ohgnc, and sa.ys among othcr things that he had hitherto
thought the 1;fltcr an ass. but that he must noxv call him a
dg, a wolf and a erocodilc, in spite of his wanting to play
the li,,l,  expressions which arc quite characteristic of
],llhtT'S style.
On the alq)carance of the " Letters of Obscure Men,"
and a similar satirical wrilin which followcd thcm. and
which also flmnd its way into Luther's hands, the young
Vittt.nbcrg pl'ofcss, w. instead of takin the licld against
lhc t'xil tctdt'lcv f lhcsc attacks of the llunmnist lm.rty on
the " Ifigtts of Seholasticisln aml the cloister " as sut'h
diatrilws deserved, and as hc in his charaetcr of lm,nk and
thcoh,gian should havc done, sought to take a middle
CollrSC : he a.ll)rox cd of thc lmrposc of thc attacks, but not
of thc satire itself, which mended lothing and containcd too
much invcctive. oth productions, hc says, must havc
come out of the salne pot ; they had as their author, if not
1 " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 14.
 Let.t.er of Augus b, 114, " Dricfweehsel," 1, p. 20.

LUTHER ON BISttOPS 57
Luther from the very outset of his career was too liberal
iu his blame of the customs and conditions in the Church
which haPl)cncd to meet with his disal)l)roval.
Scarcely had he finished his course o[ studies as a learner
than. he ah'eady began to wax eloquent against various
abuses. In his characteristic love of exaggeration of
language he did not rear to use the sharpest epithets, nor to
magnify tile evil, whether in his academic lectures or in the
lmlpit, or in his letters and writings. IIe wrote, for instance,
to Spalatiu in 1516 to dissuade the Elector o Saxony,
Frederick the Wise, from promoting Staupitz to a bishopric :
he who becomes a bisho 1) in these days falls into the most
evil of eonq)any, all the wickedness of Greece, Rome and
Sodom were to be f(,und in tile bishops; Sl)alatin should
compare the carryings-on of tile present bishq)s with those
of the bishops of Christian attti(luity ; now a pastor of souls
was considered quite exeml)lary if he merely lmrsucd his
worklly business and built u 1) for himself with his riches an
insatiable hell. t
In his first lectures at Wittenberg he eoml)lains that
" neither monasteries nor eo]h'ges, nor Cathedral churches
will in any swt accept discipline." z The clergy, he says, in
another 1)lace, gcneralising after the fashion conunon among

data which reveal with absolute certainty the exi.%ence of great cor-
ruption in the Church, and, on the other hand, we lose sight of the causes
which alone offer a satisfactory historical explanation of the great
spread of the schism. Luther himself--and it was this which decided
us to abbreviate our survey--before the public dispute commenced,
was far from possessing, in his quiet cloister, so clear a view of the condi-
tions of the time as a learned historian is nov able to obtain. The great
world of Gernmny and Europe did not, as we know, reveal itself so
clearly to the Monk and Professor as the little worhl of Wittenberg,
and his few months of travel did not make him a judge of the world
mad of men. The dark and bright elements of ecclesiastical and
popular life were seen by him only superficially and partially. In
laying more stress on some traits than on others, he allowed himself
to be influenced less by any weighing of actual facts than by his ardent
feelings. Certain features of the times appear to have remained quite
strange to him, notwithsttmding the fact that in more recent de-
scriptions of the influences at work in him, they are made to play a
great part: so, for instance, Gallicanism with its anti-monarchical
conception of the Church, or the philosophy of the ultra-realists.
With respect to Nominalism, more particulaxly in its Occamistic form,
and to mysticism, the case is absolutely different. This will, hovever,
be discussed below (chaps. iv.-v.).
t On June 8, 1516, " Briefwechsel," 1. p. 41.
" " Verke," V'eim. ed., 3, p. 444.

LUTHER AND NATHIN 59
to the Prior and the council, Luther to begin with complains
vehemently of the evil reports against his person which, accord-
ing to his information, some of those hc was addressing at Erfurt
had circulated previously. Nathin's letter had, however,
the last straw. " Thi. letter," ho says, which was written in lhe
name of all, angered him so nmch with its lies an(I its provoking,
poisonous scorn, that " I had almost poured out the vials of my
wrath and indignation on his head and the whole monastery, as
Master Paltz did." They had l)robably received the two " amazed
replies " ; as however the other charges had bceu withdrawn, hc
would hold the majority of those he was addressing as excused
they must now, on their part, forget any hurt they had felt at his
previous replies ; " Lay all that I have done," these are his words,
" to the account of the furious el)istlc of Master Nathin, for my
anger was only too well justified. Now, however, I hear still
worse things of this man, viz. that he accuses me everywhere
being a dishonourablc 1)erjnrer on account of t.lm oath t.o the
Faculty which [ am SUpl)oscd to have taken and not kelt."
goes on to explain that he had been guilty of no such crime,
for the Biblical lectures at, the commencement of which he uas'
supposed to have taken the oath, and at hich, it is true, in
accordance with the customs of the University, such an oath was
generally taken, had not been begun by him at Erfurt; at his
opening lecture ou the Sentences in that town he had, so far as hc
remembers, taken no oath, nor could he recall having ever taken
any oath in the Faculty at Erfurt. He closes with an expression
of respect and gratitude to the Erfurt Faculty. Though hc was
the injured party, he was cahn and contented and joyful, for he
had deserved nmch worse of God: they too should lay their
bitterness aside, " as God has clearly xvilled my departure (cx-
corporatio) from Erfurt, and xve must not withstand God."  This
letter and Luther's previots steps cannot be regarded as giving
proof of a harmoniously attuned disposition. He may have been
in the right in the matter of the oath, a question of which it is
difficult to judge. It was not, hoxvever, very surprising that the
Erfm't monks took steps to force Luther to make more satisfactory
amends to the Faculty than the strange lcttcr of excuse given
above. It is plain that under pressure of some higher authority
invoked by them, a second letter, this time of more correct
character, was despatched by the Wittenberg Doctor. In judging
of this academic dispute, xve must bear in mind the store that
vas set iu those days on University traditions.
The second letter in question, dated December 21, 1514, is
addressed to the " excellent Fathers and Gentlemen, the Dean
and other Doctors of the Theological Factdty of Studies at
Erfurt " and in the very fwst words shows itself to be a humble
apology and request for pardon. It contains further information
regarding the affair. I-Ie begs them at least not to deem him guilty
of a fault committed knoxvingly and out of malice ; if he had done
anything unseemly, at least it was unintentionally (" extra dolum
x " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 17.

CIIAPTER II

IIARBINGERS OF CIIANGE

1. Sources, Old and New
THE history of Luthcr's inward dcvch)l)ment during hi
first years at Wittenberg up to 1517, is. to a. certain extent.
rathcr ol)scure. The study of deep l)sychdogi('al processes
must ahvays I)e reckoned nmongst lhc most COml)h.x of
problems, and in our case the dillieulty is increased I)y the
nature of Luther's own statcmcnts with regard to hhusclf.
These bclong without cxccption to his latcr ycars, arc
uncertain and contradictory in character, and in nearly
evcry instancc rcprcscnt vicws inllucnccd bv his contro-
vcrsics and such as hc was wont to advocatc in his ohl age.
Thanks to morc rcccnt discovcrics, howcvcr, wc arc now
1)osscsscd of works writtcn 1)y Luthcr in his youth which
supply us with bcttcr information. By a proper use of thcsc,
wc arc able to obtaiu a much clcarcr picturc of his dcvclop-
mcnt than was formcrly possible.
Many false idcas which werc once currcnt havc now bccn
dispellcd; more cspccia.lly thcrc can no longer bc any
qucstion of the customary Protestant view, lmmely, that
the Monk of Wittcnbcrg was first h'd to his ncw doctrinc
through somc unusual iuward religious cxl)'ricncc by which
hc attaincd thc joyful assurancc of salvation by faith alone,
mid not by means of the good works of Popcry and monas-
ticism. This so-called imwr expcricncc, which used to be
placed in the forcfront of his change of opinions, as a
" Divinc Experience," as shown below, must disappcar
altogcthcr from history.  Objcction must equally bc taken
x XVilhehn Braun (" Die Bedeulung der Concupiscenz in Luthers
Leben und Lehre," Berlin, 1908) commences chapter ii. (" Luther's
Experience in the Monastery," p. 19) a.s follows: " It is impossible
to speak in the strict sense of any religious experience which Luther
had h the monastery. It was no catastrophe which, with elemental
force, brought about the Refonner's change. Any dramatic element
6

ON SLANDER 69

the Church has not yet become clear, but the fact remains and
will make itself apparent in time. If we ask why they insist upon
isolation, they reply: On account of the protection of the
cloistral discipline. But that is the light of an angel of Satan." 1
The following attack on the Obscrvantines in the lectures
on the Psalms is on the sane lines : There are plenty of " men
proud of their holiness and observance, hypocrites and false
brothers." - " But the fate of a Divine condemnation " will fall
upon " all the proud and stiff-necked, all the snpcrstitious, re-
bellious, disobedient, also, as I fear, on our Observantines, who
under a show of strict discipline are only loading thcnsclves with
insubordination and rebellion." 3
The Observantines were plainly in his opinion demonstrating
their unruliness by seeking to stand by the old foundation
principles of the Congregation. He is angered by their exemption
from the General and their isolation from the other German
Augustinians, and still less does he like their severities ; they ought
to fall into line with the Conventuals and join them. "Ve know
nothing further of the matter nor anything of the rights of the
case; it may be noted, however, that the after history of the
party with which Luther sided and the eventual dissolution of
the Congregation, appear rather to justify the Obscrvantines.
On the occasion of a convention of the Order at Gotha in 1515
--at which the Conventuals must have had a decided najority,
seeing that Luther was chosen as Rural Vicar--he delivered, on
May l, the strange address on slander, which has been preserved.
He represents this fault as prevalent amongst the opposite party
and lashes in unmeasured terms those in the Order " who wish
to appear holy," " who see no fault in themselves," but who
unearth the hidden sins and faults of others, and hinder them in
doing good and " in teaching." Thus the estrangement had
proceeded very far. Perhaps, even allowing for Luther's ex-
aggeration, the other side nay have had its weaknesses, and been
guilty of precipitancy and sins of the tongue, though it is unlikely
that the faults were all on one side. It is noticeable, however, that
Luther's discourse is not directed against calumniators who
invent and disseminate untruths against their opponents, but
only against those xvho bring to light the real faults of their
brethren. Scattered through the Latin text of the sermon are
highly opprobrious epithets in German. The preacher, for their
want of charity, calls his opponents " poisonous serpents, traitors,
vagabonds, murderers, t3a'ants, devils, and all that is evil, desperate,
incredulous, envious, and haters." He speaks in detail of their
devil's tilth and of the human excrement xx hich they busy them-
selves in sorting, anxious to discover the faults of their adver-

 '" Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 155.
 Ibid., 4, p. 312. Note " boitas fidei "( =Christian righteousness),
" veritas fidei "(  Christian truth), " itst itice fidei stbsta,t ia "( -- essence
of Christian righteousness).
 Ibid., 4, p. 122.

74 LUTIIER THE MONK

a lost, lump " ;1 " whoever is without God sins necessarily, i.e.
he is iu Sill " ;e " uucouquerable " or " necessary " are terlns he
is fond of applying to eoneul)iseenee in his discourses, a From
other passages it would allnost appear as if, even then, he
admitted the persistence of originM sin, even after baptisnl ; for
instance, he says that the whole world is " in peccrtis original-
ibus," though unaware of it., and lnust therefore cry " mea
cdpa"; our righteousness is nothing btt sin ;a understauding,
will, and memory, even in the bal)tised, are all fallen, and, like
the wounded Jew, await the coming of the Samaritan.  He also
speaks of the ilnputatiol of righteousness by God who, instead
of attributiug to us our SillS, " ilnputes [the lnerits of Christ] unto
OUr rlghteouslleSS.

Still, taken in their context, none of these passages furnish
any decisive proof of a deviation from the Church's faith.
They forebode, indeed, I,uthcr's later errors, but contain
ts yet no explicit denial of ('ath,lie doctrine. In this we
llUst sul)seril)e to Denillc's view, and a.dmit that llO teaching
actually heretical is found in the Commentary on the
Psahns. 8

With refereuce to man's natural powers, that cardinal point of
Luther's later tcaclling, neither the ability to be good and plcasiug
to God, nor the freedom of choosing what is right and good iu
spite of concupiscence, is denied.  Concupiscence, as he fre-

i Wcim. ed., p. 343 : " o.mnes samas massa perditionis ct debitorc8
torli8 cctcrnce."
"- Ibid., p. 354.  Cp. ibid., 4, p. 207. a Ibid., p. 497.
 Ibid., p. 383.  Ibid., p. 211.
 Ibid., 3, p. 171: " Quod ex .n.ullis operibus peccata rcmitturtur,
scd sola .miscricordia Dci on, imputontis." Cp. p. 175.
s Cp. on Concupiscence, in the Commentary on the Psalms, Denifle, 1
p. 441 f. and pp. 453, 476. A. Hunzinger, "Lutherstudien," 1 ; "Luthers
Neuplatonismus in den Psalmvorlesungen," Leipzig, 1906, Preface:
" Denifle's ' Luther ' is correct ; Luther during the first years of his
literary act.ivit.y stood on Catholic ground; nor is it by any means
the ease that from the beginning the reforming element was contained
in germ in Luther's theology." On the other hand, the element,s
which were to lead him to take the step from the obscre theology
of the Commentary on the Psahns to the heretical theology of 1515-16
--viz. his false mysticism and misapprehension of the Epistle to
the Ilomans--were already present. The most suspicious passage in
the Commentary on the Psalms is 4, p. 227, which points to the
tinuance of his doubts regarding predestination ; he says that Christ
had drunk of the chalice of suffering for the elect, but not for all. See
the next note, especially tlre first quotation.
 Veim. ed., 4, p. 295: "' Aima mea est in potestate mea et in
libertette arbitrii possum eom perdere vel salvare eligendo vel reprobando
legem tuom." Concupiscence has not yet become original sin itself,
but is still a mere relic of the same (3, pp. 215, 453). K/Sstlin, in
"" Luthers Theologic," 1-, p. 66, quotes other passages from the Corn-

80 LUTHER TIIE MONK

from the camp of Luther's opponents, but some passages
from his early scrmc)ns will show the t(mc which frc(lucntly
prevails in them.
Already in the ('hristmas sermons of 1515 Luther does not
scruple to l)lacc himself, as it were, on the same footing with
the prol)hcts, wise men and those learned in the Scril)turcs,
whose persecution Christ foretold, more particularly among
the last of tim three groups. Even then his view was
unorthodox.

" There are some," he says, " who by the study of Holy
Scripture form themselves into teachers and who are taught
neither by men nor directly by God alone." These are the
learned in t.hc Script.ures. " They exercise tlmmsclves in the
knowledge of the truth by meditation and research. Thus they
become able to interi)ret the Bible and to write for the instruction
of others." But such men are l)ersecuted, he continues, and, as
the Lord prophesied of the 1)rol)hets and wise men and scribes
that they wouhl not bc received, but attacked, so is it also with
me. They murmur against my teaching, as I am aware, and
oppose it. They reproach me with being in error because "I
preach always of Christ as the hen under whose wings all who
wish to be righteou. must gather." Thus his ideas with regard to
righteousness must have been looked upon as importunate or
exaggerated, and, by some, in all probability, as erroneous. He
immediately launches out into an apoh)gy : " What I have said
is this : Ve are not saved by all our righteousness, but it is the
wings of the hen which protect us against the birds of prey, i.e.
against the devil . . . but, as it was with the Jews, who
persecuted rightoou.ncss, so it is to-day. My adversaries do not
know what righteousness is, they call their own fancies grace.
They become birds of prey and pounce ui)on the chicks who hope
for salvation through the mercy of our hen." 

Such rude treatment meted out to those who found
fault with him (aud one naturally thinks of clergy and
religious, perhaps cvcn of his very brethren, as the culprits),
the dcnouucing them from the lmlpit as " birds of prey,"
mad his claim to lay down the law, this, and similar passages
in the sermons, throw a strong light on his disputatious
temper.

x ,, Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 f.: " Semper prcedico de Christo,
gallina nostra . . . et ecitur mihi errans et falsum." :He preached,
namely, against those " qui ab alis [Domii] recedunt in sua propria
bona opera.., et nolunt audire, quod itstitiaz eorum pcccata sint.
Gratiam maxime 4mpugnat. qui earn iacta.nt." The expression " galli,a
nostra " appears also in the Commentary on the Psahns (" Verke,"
Veim. ed., 3, p. 71).

DENUNCIATION OF OBSERVANTINES 81
In a well-ordered condition of things the Superiors of the
Augustinians or the diocesan authorities would have inter-
vened to put a stop to sermons so scandalously offensive ; at
Wittenberg, however, the evil was left unchecked and
allowed to take deeper root. The students, the younger
monks and some of the burghers, been.me hind and en-
thusiastic folh)wcrs of the bohl preacher. Staupitz was
altogether on his side, and. owing to him, also the Elector of
Saxony. The Prince was, however, so little of an authority
on matters thcoh,gieal that Luther once writes of him that
he was " in things eolmernin God and the salvatim of the
soul a.hnost seven times blind. ''
Luther's notes on his Sunday scrlnons during lhe summer
of 151.6a time vh(.n he had already expressed his errors
quite plainly in his lectures on the Epistle to the Ronmns
afford us a glimpse of an acute controversy. At this time
his sermons dealt with the first Colnmandment.

The Gospel for the 7th Sunday after Pentecost with the words :
" Beware of false lwophcts " gives him an all too tempting oppor-
tunity for a brush with his adversaries, and, on July 6, he attacks
them from the standpoint of his nev ideas on righteousness.
" Much fasting, and long prayers," he cries, " study, preaching,
xvatching, and poor clothing, these are the pious lambskins under
which ravening wolves hide themselves." In their case these are
only " works done for shov." These Observantines, for all their
great outward display of holiness, are " heretics and schismatics."
Thus does he storm, evidently applying his words to his brother
monks of the Observantine party, who probably had been among
the first to eriticise him. The following remar -ks on rebellion and
defamation make this apldieation all the clearer.  " The true
works by which we may reeognise the lwophets are done in the
inner and hidden man. But these proud men are wanting above
all in patience and the charity which is forgetflfl of self, but
concerned for others." " Wheu they have to do works which are
not. to their liking they are slow, rebellious, obstinate, but. they
well know how to take away the name of others and to pass
judgment on them .... There is no greater plague in the Church
to-day than these men with the words: 'Good works are
necessary' in t.heir mouths; men who refuse to distinguish
between what is good and evil because they are enemies of the
Cross, i.e. of the good things of Clod." a
Such a dm'ing challenge on Luther's part did not fail in its

 To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, " Briefweehsel," 1, p. 40.
 Cp. his reproaches against members of his own Order with regard
to disobedience and want of charity, which will be given shortly.
 " Werke," Veim. ed., 1, p. 61.

I. --(;

OCCAMISM 85

lifelong dislike of Scholasticism vas his very partialacquaint-
ante with the same. lie had, as wc sha.ll see, never studied
its great, representatives in the tlfirt.ccnth century; hc had
made acquailffance only with its later CXl)Oncnts , viz. the
Nominalists of Occam's school, who gave the tone to his
theological instructions and whose teachings were very
prevalent in the schools in that day. lie speaks repeatedly
of William of Occam as his teacher. Of Luther's relations
to his doctrines we shall have to speak later: some of
Occam's views he opposed, others, which happened to be at
variance with those of St. Thonms of Aquin, hc alprovcd.
lie would not have attributed to the latter and to other
exponents of the better school of Scholastic|sin such foolish
theses a.s he didthcscs of which they never even drca.lut
had hc possessed any clear notion of their teaching. There
can be no doubt that he also imbibed during his first years
as a student at. Erfurt, the spirit of alta.golfism against
Scholasticism which IIulnaldsm with its craving for novelty
displayed, an anta.golfiSln ba.sed ostensibly on disgust at the
unelassie form of the former.
Already during the earliest, period of his career at. Witt.cn-
berg, as soon, indeed, as he began to preach and lecture,
he eomnwneed his attacks against Scholastic|sin.
lie eonsiders that ;'istotle, on whom in the Middle Ages both
theologiaus and philosophers haxl set such store, had been grossly
misunderstood by most of the scholastics ; all the good there is
in Aristotle, he says, he has stolen from others ; whatever in him
is right., others must understand and make use of bett.er than ho
himself. 
He often passes judgment on the theology of the Middle Ages
from the point of view of the narrow, one-sided school of Oceam,
and then, with his lively imagination, he gn'oss!y exaggerates the
opposit,ion between it and St. Thomas of Aquin and the more
classic sehoohnen. The whole herd of theologians, he says, has
been led astray by Aristotle ; nor have they understood him in
the least ; according to him, Thomas of Aqttin--the Doctor whom
the Church has so greatly honoured and placed ag the head of all
theologians--did not oxpound a single chapter of .4xistot.le
aright ; " all tho Thonfists together " have not understood one
chapter. Aristotle has only led them all to lay too much stress
upon tho importance and merit of human effort and human works
o the disadvantage of God's grace. Here lay Aa'istot, le's chief
crime discovered by Luther, t.hanks o his own new theology.'-
 Cp. K6stlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 118. Extracts from the firs of the
Christmas sermons of 1515 (or 1514).
.o K6stliax-Kawerau, 1, p. 128 seq.

86 LUTHER THE MONK

In his le.ctures ou the Psalms Luther already tells his hearers
that the bold loquacity of theology was due to Aa-istotlc ; he
makes highly exaggerated remarks regarding the disputes between
the Scotists and Or.cam and between Occam and Scotus.: Peter
Lombm'd, no less than Scotus and St. Thomas, comes in for some
harsh criticism. But Luther ever reverts to Aa-istottc. lie wishes,
so he writes to his friend Lang in February, 1516, to tear off
"the Greek mask which this comedian has assumed to pass him-
self off in the Church as a philosopher ; his shame should be laid
bare to all." 3

Such audacious lauguagc had probably never before been
used against the greatest minds in the history of human
thought by a theological professor, vho himself had as yet
given no proof whatever of his capacity.
tIis atta.eks on Scholasticism a.nd the 1)hilosopllical and
theological schools up to that day, were soon employed to
cover his a.ttaeks on dogma and the laws of the Church.
In 151g he places Scholasticism and Canou Law on the same
footing, both needing reform, a
The learned Martin Pollich, who was teaching law at the
University of Wittenberg, looked at the young assailaut
with forebodings as to the future, tie frequently said that
this monk would overthrow the teaching which yet prevailed
at all the universities. " This brother has deep-set eyes,"
he once relnarkcd, " he must have strange fancies."  tIis
strange eyes, with their pensive glcaln, ever ready to smile
on a friend, and, in fact, his whole presence, made a.n ill-
pression upon all who were brought into close contact with
hilu. It is an undoubted fact, true even of his later days, .
that intercourse with him was pleasant, especially to those
whom he honoured with his friendship or whom he wished
to influence. Not only were his pupils at Wittenberg
devoted admirers of the brave critic of the Schoolmen, but,
little by little, he also gained an unquestioned authority
 1,26stlin-I,2awerau, 1, p. 129.
 Seidemann, " Luthers Vorlestmgen fiber die PsMmen," 1, p. 211 ;
" Wcrke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 319.
3 To Joh. Lang, Prior at Erfurt, February 8, 1517. " Briefweehsel,"
1, p. 86 : " Nihil ira ardet animus, quam histrionem illum, qui tam vere
Grceca larva ecclesiam lusit, multis vevelare ignominiamque eius cunctis
ostendere." De Wette has the letter incorrectly dated February 8, 1516.
a Letter to Trutfetter, May 9, 1518, " Briefvechsel," 1, p. 187.
 " Corpus Reform.," 3, p. 154, n. 83. O. Waltz erroneously ques-
tions this statement in " Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.," 2, 1878, p. 628.
Cp. 3, 1879, 305.

88 LUTHER THE MONK

edition to Spalatin (December 14, 1516), he wrote, that Tauler
offered a solid thet,logy xvhich was quite similar to the old ; that
he was acquainted with no theology more holesome and evan-
gelical. Spalatin shoukl saturate himself with Tauler's sermons ;
" taste and see how sweet the Lord is, after you have first, tasted
and seen how bitter is everything that is ourselves." 
In addition to the attthors menticmed, the mysticism of
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and of (lerm'd Groot, the
founder of the Comnunity of the Brethren of the Common Life,
were known to him. That he was, or had been, fond of reading
the writings of St. Bernard, we may guess from his many--often
misunderstoodquotations from the same.
Luther was also well able, whilst under the influence of that
inwm'dness which he loved so much in the mystics, to make his
own their truly devotional and often mox ing hmguage.
In a friendly letter he comforts, as follows, an Augustinian at
Erfm't, (leorg Leiffer, regarding his spiritual troubles: " The
Cross of Christ is diMributed throughout tim hole world and
each one gets a small piece of it. Do not throw yonrs away, but
lay it, like a sacred relic, in a goldeu shrine, i.e. in a heart filled
with gentle charity. For even the wrongs which we snffer from
men, 1,ersecut.ions, passion and hatred, which a.re caused us
either by the wicked or by those who mean well, are priceless
relies, which have not indeed, like the wood of the cross, been
hallowed by contact with our Lord's body, but which have
been blessed by His most loving heart, encompassed by His
friendly, Divine Yill, Mssed and sanctified. The curse becomes a
blessing, insult becomes righteousness, suffering becomes an
aureole, and the cross a joy. Farewell, sweet father and brother,
and pray for me."

5. Excerpts from the Earliest Letters
The above letter of Luther's is one of the few remaining
which belong to that transition pericd in his life. ]Its letters
arc naturally not devoid of traces of the theological change
which was going forward withiu him, and they may there-
fore be considered among the precursors of his future
doctrine.
]Its new theological standpoint is already apparent in
the charitable and sympathetic letter of encouragement
which, as Pmral Vicar, he sent to one of his brother monks
about that time. " Learn, my sweet brother," hc writes
to George Spenlein, an Augustinian of the monastery of
]Icmmingcn, " learn Christ and IIiln Crucified, learn to
sing to IIim, and, despairing of your own self, say to
lIiln : Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am
 " Correspondence," 1, p. 75.

MYSTIC TONE OF LETTERS 89
Thy sin ; Thou hast aeeel)tcd what I am and givcn me what
Thou art; Thou hast thus become what Thou wast not,
and what I vas not I have received.. . . Never dc'sre,"
hc cxhorts him, " a l)urity so great as to make you ccasc
thinking yoursdf, mty bcing, a simcr; for Christ dwells
only in sinncrs; lIc came down h-ore hcavcn whcrc
dwclls in the righteous in ordcr to live also in simmrs. If
you ponder Ul>On lIis lovc, then you will become conscious
of I-[is most swcct consolation. What wcrc thc usc of tIis
dcath had wc to attain to pcacc of conscience by our own
trouble and labour ? Thcrcforc only in lIim will you find
l)cacc through a trustful despair of yourself and your
VoI'kS.   1
A similar mystical tonc (wc arc not hcrc concerned with
thc thc()logy it iml>licd ) shows itself also hcrc and thcrc in
Luthcr's later corrcsl)ondcncc. Thc lifc of pul)lic contro-
versy in which hc was soon to engage was certainly not
conducivc to thc peaccful, mystical tone of thought and
to the cultivation of thc intcrior spirit; as might havc
bccn cxpcctcd, thc rcsult of the strugglc was to cast his
fccling and his modc of thought in a very diffcrcnt lnould.
It was impossiblc for him to bccomc the mystic some
peol)lc havc madc him out to be owing to thc distractions
and cxcitemcnt of his lifc of struggle. 
In thc abovc letter to Spcnlcin, Luthcr spcaks of this
monk's rclations to his brcthrcn. Sl)cnlcin had prcviously
bccn in thc monastcry at Wittcnbcrg, whcrc Luther had
known him as a zcalous monk, much troublcd about thc
details of the Rulc, and who evcn found it. difficult to have
to livc with monks who werc lcss cxact in thcir obscrvancc.
" Whcn you wcrc with us," says thc writer, " you were
under thc impression, or rather in thc error in which I also
was at one timc held cal>tivc, and of which I havc not evcn
now complctcly rid myself (' Ioldum expugnavi'), that it
is ncccssary to perform good works until onc is confident

1 Letter of April 8, 1516, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 29. (De Vette
dates it April 7.)
 " Luther never became by his diligent study of Tauler a mystic
in the strict sense of the word. He makes his own merely the language
of mysticism. He often uses the same expressions as Tauler, but with
another meaning, indeed he even unconsciously imputes to Tauler
his own views," H. B6hmer, " Luther im Lichte der neuercn For-
schung," Leipzig, 1906, p. 35 (omitted in the 2nd edition, 1910).

92 LUTHER THE MONK

impudent, and called the author a clowll. 1 A similar work
by the amc grou 1) of IIunm.nits against the " Thcolo-
asrcrs, entitled " Tetwr supplicationis Pasquilli(mcc "
as hc informs Spa.latin, himself a Ih,manisthc had held
u 1) to the ridicule of his colleagues, as it richly descrvcd
account of the iavcctivc and slanders which it contained. 

He appealed to Spalatin to draxv the attention of Erasmus to
his misapprehension of righteousness as it appears in the Epistle
to the Romans ; he says that Erasmus overrates the virtues of
heathen heroes, xvhereas even the most blameless of men, even
Fabricius and Regulus, xvere miles axvay from righteousness;
outside of faith in Christ there is, according to hi,n, no righteous-
heSS whatever; 2n'istotle, whom everybody follows, likewise
knew nothing of this righteousness; but Paul and Augustine
teach it; what Paul calls self-righteousness is not merely, as
Erasmus says, a righteousness founded on the observances of the
Mosaic Laxv, but any righteousness whatever which springs out
of works, or out of the observance of any laxv ; Paul also teaches
original sin in the fifth chal)ter of the Epistle to the Romans, a
fact which Erasmus wrongly denies. With regard to Augustine,
he could unfold to him (Erasmus) St.. Paul's meaning better than
he thinks, 10ut he should diligently read the writings against the
Pelagians, above all the De Spiritu et littera. Augustine there
takes a firm stand on the foundation of the earlier lq'athers
(Luther's quotations from his authorities shoxv hoxv much
the study had fascinated him). But after Augstine's day,
dead lit.eralism became the general rule. Lyra's Bible Com-
mentary, for instance, is full of it; the right interpretation of
Holy Scripture is also xvanting in Faber Stapulensis, notwith-
standing his ninny excellencies. Hence, he writes, xve nmst fall
back on Augustine, on Augustine rather than on Jerome to whom
Erasmus gives the preference in Bible matters, for Jerone keeps
too much to the historical side; he reconmends Augustine not
merely because he is an Augustinian monk, for formerly he him-
self did not think him xvorthy of consideration until he " fell in "
(incidissem) with his books, a
Augustine's " On the Spirit and the Letter," a work dedicated
to Marcellinus, and dating from the end of 412, with which
Luther had become acquainted in 1515, had a lasting influence on
him. In this book the great Doctor of the Church strikes at the
very root of Pelagianism and shows the necessity, for the
accomplishment of supernatural good works ("facere et perficere

x To Spalatin, about October 5, 1516, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 62.
 Ibid.
a To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, '" Briefwechsel," 1, p. 63. Spalatin
took his advice, as his letter to Erasmus (" Opp. Erasmi," ed. Lugd.
Bat., 3, col. 1579 sq.) shows. The letter is also prixated in " Brief-
wechsel," 1, p. 65

102 LUTHER THE MONK
sin which clsuc(1, l>ut which is not sinful so long as there is
no consent to is enticements.
As regards the distinction between morta.] and venial
sin, we find Luther's doctrine has ah-cady reached its later
staldl)oint , according to which there is no difference between
them. In the mc way hc already de,tics the merit of good
works. " It is clear," hc writes, " that according to sub-
stance and nature venial sin does not exist, and that there
is no such thing as merit. '' All sins, in his ol)inion, arc
mortal, because cvcn the smallest contains the deadly
poison of concupiscence. With regard to merit, according
to him, cvcn" the saints have no merit of their own, but
only Christ's merits. ''e Even i their actions the motive
of l)crfcct love was not sucicntly lively. " If it might bc
done ulpulishcd and there wcrc no cxl)cctation of rc'ar(l,
thcll cvcn t]lc good lllall would omit the good and do evil
like the bad. ''a
With this pcssilnistie view of Luther's wc conclude our
prclilnilmry glance at the theological goal to which his
development had led him. Vc will not at present pursue
further the theme of pcssimisln which might bc brought out
more clearly in the light of the doctrine contained in his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans regarding
absolute predestination to hell, and resignation to hell as
the highest act of virtue, a All the new doctrines we have
passed in review may be regarded as forerunners of the great
revolution soon to come; we see here in these questions
of doctrine the utter lack of respect and the boldness which
the originator of this revolutionary theology will, later on,
manifest against the Church, when it became clear that,
without being untrue to herself, she could not approve his
teaching. Mcaliwhilc the connection of these doctrines
among thclnsclvcs and with the confing world-historic
movement calls for further elucidation. We need offer no
excuse for attempting this in detail in the following pages.

 Fol. 153. " Sehol. lom.," p. 123 : " Pater quod nullum est
eccatum vcniale ex substantia et natura sua sed ncc meritam.'"
 Fol. 153". " Schol. Rom.," p. 124: " Dicis, ut quid ergo merita
sanctorum adeo prcedicant,ar. Respondeo, quod non sunt eorum merita,
sed Christi i eis."
 Fol. 121, 121" ; Denifle-Weiss, 1 -, p. 453 ; " Schol. Rom.,"
p. 73f.
* On Predestination see below, chapter vi. 2.

LUTHER ON IIUS 107

Commentary on the Psahns hc regards them simply as
heretics, 1 and in his lectures on the Epistle to the Romans
he once instances the " ha'rests Pighardor,um " as an examl)lc
of the wilful destruction of what is holy.  Later, however,
at and after his public apostasy, and cvcn shortly after the
Leipzig Disl)utation , hc defends some of IIus's doctrines,
and the result of his perusal of Itus's work, " De ecclesia,"
was to make him more audacious in upholdiag the views
it contains, a This quite exl)lains the great sympathy with
which hc afterwards speaks of Hus and his writings in
general, and the passionate way in which hc blames the
Catholic Church for having condcnmcd him. I-Ic says in
1520: " In many parts of the Gcrnmn land there still
survives the memory of John Itus, and, as it did not fade,
I also took it up, and discovered that hc was a worthy,
highly enlightened nmn .... Scc, all yc Papists and
Romanists," hc cries, " whether you arc able to undo one
page of John I-Ius with all your writings. '' That book
of lIus's sermons which he found as a young student of
theology in the monastery library at Erfurt (p. 25), hc
declares that hc laid aside because it was by an arch-
heretic, though he had found nmch good in it, and had been
horrified that such a man had suffered death as a heretic;
as hc had at that time convinced himself, ]-Ius interpreted
Scripture powerfully and in a Christian manner, s Wc also
know that Luther relates that Staupitz had told him of
Prolcs, his predecessor, how hc disapproved of Johann
Zacharia, one of the most capable opponents of I-Ius, and

 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, pp. 292, 334. Cp. V. KShler, " Luther
md die Kirchengesch.," (1900), p. 168 f.
 " SchoI. Rom.," p. 315.
a W. KOhler, ibid., p. 225 : " In his acquaintance with the sources
Luther hardly rises above the average. Eck is superior to him in this
point, for he deals with the various sources as an expert, which Luther
never was. Eraser also was not behind Luther . . . that Luther
became acquainted with I-Ius's ' De Ecclesia ' at an earlier period than
his friends and adversaries was due to the kindness of the Bohemians,
not to his own zeal in research, tits friends as well as his adversaries
made haste to catch up with him again."
 "Concerning Eck's latest Bulls." "Werke," ErI. ed., 24', p. 28 ;
Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. Cp. Luther's "Prefaces and epilogues to some
letters of Hus'" (1536 and 1537), " Werke," Erl. ed., 65, p. 59 ft., and
" Opp. Lat. vat.," 7, p. 536 seq.
 " ,Verke," Erl. ed., 65, p. 81. See W. KShler, ibid., p. 167:
" We may well ask here whether the experience of later years does
not come in as well."

110 LUTHER THE MONK

counted for anything ; so great was it that he had been taught
not to thank God for the Sacrament, but that God should thank
him ; but, notvithstanding all these errors, he had always sought
after a " nerciful God " and had at last found tIim by coming
to understand His gospel.
The birth and growth of this fable in the mind of Luther as
he advanced in years will occupy us later. The present writer
may point out, that no convincing answer has been given to the
objections again.t the legend which he made public even prior
to the appearance of Denifle's first volume,  aud which were
repeated therein independently, and at considerably greater
length. On the Protestant side, too, much more caution is now
being observed in the use of Lutiler's later descriptions of his own
development, the tendency being to use contemporary sources
instead. This is seen, for instance, in the studies by Braun on
Luther's theory of concupiscence and by tIunzinger on Luther's
mysticisln, which will be quoted later.

In explanation of the inner process through which Lnther
went, the prilnary reason for his turning away from Catholic
doctrine ]ms bccn attributed by st)mc Catholics to scrupu-
losity com|)incd with all nnhcalthy self-righteousness, which
by an inward reaction grew into carelessness and despair.
I[ow far this view is correct, and how far it requires to be
snpplcmcntcd by other iml)ortant factors, will be shown
further on.
Meanwhile another altogether too SUlnmary theory, a
theory which overshoots the lnark, must first bc considered.

2. Whether Evil Concupiscence is Irresistible ?

Formerly, and even in recent times, many writers on
the Catholic side have endcarourcd to 1)rove that the
principal motive for Luther's new opinions lay iu worldli-
ness, sensuality, and more especially sins of the flesh. In
order to explain his teaching attclnpts were made to establish
the closest COlmcction between Luther's views with regard
to the survival of sin in man without his consent, the
covering over of man's guilt by the merits of Christ and the
vorthlcssncss of good works on the one hand, and on the
other a nature ravaged by sinful habits, such as was attri-
bntcd to the origilmtor of these doctrines. The principal
argument in favour of this view was found in the not unusual

 "Literar. Beilage" to the "KS]n. Volksztg.," No. 44, October 29,
1903. " Luthers Selbstzeugnisse fiber seine Klosterzeit, eine Luther-
legende."

ON CONCUPISCENCE 113

Ite frequently expresses the truth, taught by faith and
experience a.like, regarding the eontilmalme of concupiscence
in man, even in the most perfect, and he does so in terlns
so strong that hc seems to make eoneul)iseenee invilmible.
We can also see that he has a livcL" sense of the burden of
concupiscence, that he cherishes a certain gh(,my distrust
of God's readiness to come to man's assistance--a distrust
eomeeted with his temptations on 1)redestinatiol--and
that he undervalues the helps which the Church offers
against evil desires. Finally, he sees in the very existence
of eoneul)iseenee a culpable offence against the Ahnighty,
and declares that, without grace, nm.n is an unhal)py
l)risoner, who in consequence of original siu is in the fullest
sense ineal)able of doing what is good.
In his Commentary on the Psalms (1512-15-16) he still,
it is true, upholds the natural freedom of man as opposed
to his passions. Iu the Commentary ou the Epistle to the
Pomans (1515-16), and frequently in the sermons of that
peri(d, he indeed sacrifices this freedom, but even there he
iusists that the grace of Ged will in the end seeure the victory
to those who seek aid aud pray humbly, and he also instances
some of the means which, with the elfieacious assistance
of God, may help to victory in the religious life. To this
later staudl)()int of the possibility of resistance with the
assistance of grace he adhered to his end. Exhortations
to struggle not only against actual sins, but also against
the smouldering fire of eoncul)iseenee--whieh must be ex-
tinguished more and more in the righteous until at length
death sets him free--occupy nm.ny pages of his writings.
The jarring notes present in the above teaching do not seem
to have troubled him at any tilne ; he seeks to conceal them
and to ])ass them over. Never once does he enter upon a
real theological diseussi(n of the most difficult point of al!,
the relation of grace to free will.
Luther also speaks of our freedom and our responsibility for
our personal sMvation in his Commentary on the Psalms : " Ny
soul is ill my own keeping; by the freedom of my will I can
make it eternally happy or eternally mahappy by choosing cr
rejecting Thy law." Therefore PsMm exviii. 109 says, " Ny
soul is Mways iu my hands." mad although I am free to do either,
yet I have not " forgotten Thy law."  He defends the principle
x ,, lVerke," lVeim, ed., 4, p. 295. Cp. ibid., 9, p. 112, Luther's
marginal note on Anselm's " Opuscula," which has the same meaninf
Denifle-Veiss, 1 -, p. 507, n. 3.

DISTASTE FOR GOOD WORKS 117
Romans gives us the iml)ression of being the work of an
inlmoral man, a fact which should also carry some weight.
An author who at the first assault had capitulated to his
evil desires would hardly have been able to conceal his low
moral standard; he would rather have been tempted to
join the Elfieureans or the Sceptics, or the mbelicving
ranks of the IIumanists. Of anything o[ the kind there is no
trace in the books last mentioned.
Their characteristic is father--there is no harm in men-
tioning it nowa certain false sl)iritualism, a mysticism,
which, especially in the interpretation of the Epistle to
the Romans, frequently follows quite devious paths. In
consequence of his unceasing opl)osition to self-righteous-
ness, of his poor idea of God and of human strength, and
of his false mystical train of thought, Luther came to dismiss
human freedom and to set up the power of sin on the throne.
Aristotle's teaching regarding the ha.rural righteousness
which arises from goed actions is particularly distasteful
to Luther, and equally distasteful to the nominalistie
critic is the doctrine of supernatural righteousness through
infused sanctifying grace, which he prefers to replace by
the imputation of the merits of Christ.

3. The Real Starting-point and the Co-operating Factors
Tile real origin of Luther's teaching must be sought in
a fundamcnta! principle which governed him, which was
fostered by the decline in his life as a religious and a priest,
and more particularly by his inordinate love of his own
opinion and by the uncharitable criticisms he passed npon
others. This was his unfavourable estimate of good works,
and of any effort, natural or supernatural, on the part of
nlan,
This opposition to a principle, common to the Church
and to monasticism, as to the necessity in which men
generally and religious in particular stand of performing
good works if they wish to please God, is the first deviation
from the right path which we notice in him. IIe called it
a fight against " holiness by works " and self-righteousness,
and in this fight he went still further. IIe made his own
the &.adly error that man by his natural powers is unable
to do anything but sin. To this he added that the man who,

"THE WISDOM OF MY MIND" 121

vhcre, even in the zeal of the Observantincs for their rule,
especially when he had already fallen away from the ideals
of his 1)rofession, from monastic piety and the spirit of the
1)riesthocd. A boundless self-reliance began to possess him,
and led him forward regardless of all. This was the " wisdom
of his own mind " of which he accuses himself in 1516 in a
letter to a fricnd in the Order, speaking of it as the " founda-
tion and root" of much mrcst; I)itter]v he exclaims:
" Oh, how much 1)ain has the evil eye [this sclf-eonecit]
already caused me, and how much does it eontimm to
ldague me. ''1 We may take these words more seriously
than they were probably meant. IIis cotism and pride
were lla.ttcrcd to such an extent bv his imagination that he
seemed to find cvcryvhcre confirmation of his own pre-
conecivcd notions. Ilaving read Ta.ulcr he at once con-
sidered him as the greatest of writers, because he was able
to credit him with some or his own sentiments. Then again
in Augustine, the Doctor of the Church. he found, as he
imaa'ined, a true reflection of his new doctrine. Devoid of
the necessary intellectual and moral diseip]iue, he allowed
himself to be blinded by a fanatic attachment to his oxvn
opinion.
Carried awav by his own judgment and regardless of the
teaching of all the schools, yea, even of the Church herself,
he passed into the camp of the enemy, pcrhal)s xvithout at
first, being aware of it ; he came to deny entirely the merit
of good works as though they were of no importance for our
salvation as eompa.rcd with the power of faith, an idea. in
which he fortified himself by his one-sided study of I[oly
Scripture and by his misinterpretation of the Epistles of
St. Pmfl, that preacher of the power of fidth and of the
grace of Christ. I[e was always accustomed to consider
the Ilible as his special province, and, given his eharaeter,
it was not difficult for him to identify himself with it, and
to ascribe to himself the discovery of great Scriptural
truths till then misunderstood or forgotten; for instance,
the destruction of nmn's powers by original sin and their
renewal by faith a.nd grace. The false doctrine of the
outward imlmtation of the merits of Christ came next.
The school of Oeeam here prepared the way for him by its
views on sanctifying grace and " aeeeptatiou" (imputa-
 To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, " Briefweehsel," 1, p. 31.

122 LUTHER THE MONK

tion). Luther found in Occam's views o this subject no
obstacle, but rather a SUl)por. This positive iuflucnce on
him of Oeeam will be dealt with below (chap. iv. 3), together
wi[h oher positive effects which decadcu[ Scholasticism
exercised upon him. Just as it suited his violent character
to declare in no gentle words the renunciation of personal
merit of every kind for the imputation of the merits of
Christ, so tim tendency of his own re]ig'ious life, which had
become alicna.tcd fr)m the ideals of his Order, encouraged
him to make the whole moral task consist in a siml)le,
trustful a])prol)riation of the saving merits of Christ, ia
confidence, comfort a.nd safety, notwithstanding the dis-
scntieut inner voices.
Further, his study of false mysticism (scc below, chap. v.)
hell)cd to elohc his new ideas in the deceptive dress of
1)icty. To himself hc sccmcd to bc fulfilling 1)erfcctly the
1)rcccpts of the mystics to scck everywhere the spirit and
make small account of outward things: hc imagined that
Christ wculd bc truly honourcd, and the importaucc of
Divine grace effectually made manifest, by despair of our
own works, yea, even of ourself. The power which a
mysticism gone astray exercised in those early stages Ul)OU
a mind so full of imagination and feeliug cannot be over-
estimated.
The oldest letter wc have of Luther to Staupitz is in itself
a witness to its writer's self-deception; to his fatherly
friend he speaks quite openly aud even upl)eals to his
sermons "on the Love of God" in SUl)port of his own
errors. Staul)itz had warned him in a friendly mamcr
that in many places his name stood in very bad repute.
Luther admits in this letter, written four months after hc
had affixed the well-known Wittenberg Theses, that his
doctrine of justification, his sermons on the worthlessness
of works, and his opposition to (hc theology in vogue in
the schools had ra.iscd a storm against him. People sa.id
that hc rejected pious practices md all good works. And
vet he was merely a disciple of Taulcr's theolo-v and, like
Staupitz, had taught nothing else but that " wc should
place our confidence in none other than Jesus Christ, not
in any prayers and merits and good works, because we arc
saved not by our works, but by God's mercy." If God
were working in him, so hc concludes enthusiastically, then

126 LUTHER THE MONK

on the Mass (" Sacri canonis missw cxpositio lileralis ac
myslica") " with a bleeding heart." So hc himself says
later, when hc also speaks of the work, then widely used,
as " n excellent book, as I then thought. ''1 From the tone
of his h.ttcr of invitatim to his first Mass wc can judge of
Iris state ,)f c(,mm(,ti)n. The c(mfusi()n and trouble vhich he
experienced at his first Mass, a.nd the fear which seized him
during the 1)rwcssi(m of the Blessed Sacrament, ]cad us to
conclude lha.t he was readil  ()vere,)me by vain apprchcl-
sions combined with physical excitement. Here also belongs
Luther's later statement concerning the fears which hc
(and others too) experienced when in the monastery at
the smallest ritual blunders, as t]mugh they had been
great sins; such an assertion, though cxag'cratcd and
untrue, is probably an echo of his own troubled state
during the liturgical ccrclnonies.
It is possible that those fears may have bccn the cause
of his great pessimism with regard to human works. They
may have contributed to make hiln see sin in what was
merely the result of fallen nature vith its invohmtary
concupisccnccs, without any consent of the will. Such fears
nmy havc pursued him when he began to brood over the
doctrine of man's powers, original sin and gracc ; we speak
of his " brooding," for Iris inclinations a.t that time were
to a melancholy contemplation of things mscen. The
timidity which he had acquired in the early days of his
boyhood and at school doubtless had its effect in keeping
hiln in such moods, apart from his own tcmpcrmncnt.

On close examination of Luther's theological studies xve
find that his prcl)aration for the office of professor--so far
as a knowledge of the positive doctrine of the Church, of
the Fathers mad of good Seholastieisln is eolmeruedwas
all too lneagre.
tie had not at his command the time neeessary for pene-
tra.ting deeply into dogma or into its presentment by
earlier exponents. What was said above of his course of

1 Lauterbach, "Tagebuch," p. 18. Biel's much-esteemed book on
the Mass was composed principally of discourses to the clergy delivered
in the cathedral at Mayence by his friend and teacher Egelbg Becker
of Brunswick. In the title Biel speaks of him as " vita pariter et
doctrina prcefulgidus." Adolf Franz, " Die Messe im deutschen Mittel-
alter " (1902), p. 550 ff.

"THE SCHOOLS OF THE SOPHISTS" 145

special help of God is, according to most of them, saving grace
itself ; actual grace, i.e. the divinely infused intermediary between
man's natural and supernatural life, finds no place in their
system. This explains, if we may anticipate a little, how it is
that Luther pays so little attention to actual grace ;l he has no
need of it, because man, according to him, cannot keep the law
at all without the (iml)uted) state of grace. It is unfortunate
that Biel, in whom Luther trusted, should have misrepresented
the actual teaching of true Scholasticisn concerning the necessity
and nature of grace, whether of actual or saving grace.
As early as 1515 Luther, with the insufficient knowledge lm
possessed, accused the Scholastics generally of teaching that
" man by his natural powers is able to love God above all things,
and substantially to do the works commanded, though not, indeed,
according to the 'intention ' of the lawgiver, i.e. not in the state
of grace." " Therefore, according to them," he says, " grace
was not necessary save by a new imposition demanding more than
the law (' per no-cam exactionem-ultra legem '); for, as they teach,
the law is fulfilled by our own strength. TITus grace is not
necessary to fulfil the lw, save by reason of God's new exaction
which goes beyond the law. Who will put up with these sacri-
legious views ? " Assuredly his indignation against Scholasti-
cism would have been righteous had its teaching really been what
he imagined. In the same way, and with similarly strong ex-
pressions, he generalises what he had learnt in his narrow world
at Erfurt and ,Vittenberg, and ascribes to the whole of Christen-
dora, to the Popes and all the schools, exactly what the Occmnists
said of the results of original sin being solely confined to the
lower powers. Here, and in other connections too, he exclaims :
"the whole Papacy has taught this, and all the schools of Sophists
[Scholastics]." "Have they not denied that nature was ruined
by sin when they assert that they are able to choose what is
good according to the dictates of right reason ? "
From his antagonism to such views, an antagonism we find
already in 1515, when he was preparing for his lectures on the
Epistle to the Romans, sprang his own gloomy doctrine of the
death of free will for good, aud the poisoning of human natm-e by
original sin. Vith its first appearance in the lectures metioned
we shall deal later.

1 Denifle, 1, p. 670 f.
 " Opp. Lt. exeg.," 19, p. 6l seq. Such views have often been
adopted from Luther by ]?rotestmt theologians nd historians.
" The worth of Scholasticism," Denifle complains, 1 , p. 845. " i.e.
the scholastic doctrine as misundcrstood nd misrepresented by them,
is judged of by them according to Luther's erroneous views which they
receive as axioms, first principles and unalterable truths." In the
second edition A. Weiss has struck out this sentence. Denifle, 1 ,
p. 840, complains with reason that Biel is accepted s a reliable repre-
sentative of Scholasticism. Cp. p. 552, n. 1, fter showing his in-
accuracy in one passage : " The reder my jtdge for himself what
a false impression of St. Thomas's teaching would be gained from
Biel."

150 LUTHER THE MONK

cism. What he failed to distinguish, St. Thomas, Thomisna, and
all true cholatics distinguished with very great clearness.
Aquinas draws a sharp line of demarcation between the civil
virtue of righteousness and the so-called infused righteousness
of the aot of justification. He anticipates, so to speak, Luther's
objection and his confusion of one idea with another, and teaches
that by the repeated performance of exterior works an inward
habit is without doubt foi'ned in consequence of which mn is
better disposed o act rightly, as 'isot.lc teaches in his "Ethics";
" but," he says, " bis only holds good of human righteousness,
by which man is disposed to what is humanly good (' iustitia
humana ad bonam humanum '); by human works the habit of
such righteousness can be acquired. But the righteousness
which counts in he eyes of God (i.e. supernatm'al righteousness)
is ordained o the Divine good, namely, to future glory, which
exceeds human strength (' iustitia qu habet fflo'iam apad Deum ;
ordinata ad bonum divinum') . . . wherefore man's works are
of no value for producing the habi of this righteousness, bu
he hem' of man must th's of all be inwardly justified by God,
so that he may do he works which are of worth for eernal
glory." z
8o speaks he mos eminen of the Schoohnen in the name of
the rue beology of he Middle Ages.
For Luther, who 10rings forward he above arbitrary objection
in his Comnmnary on Romans, i would have been very easy
have made use of he explanation jtmt given, for i is fotmd in
St. Thomas's Commentary on his very Epistle. Luther, one
would have hought, would certainly have consulted his work
for his inrpretaion of he Epistle, were it only on account
its historical ineres, and even if i had no been he best work
on he subjec which had so far appeared. Bu no, i seems
he never looked into his Commentary, nor even into the older
glosses of Per Lombard on the Epistle o he Romans, hen
much in use; in the latter he would at once have found the
refutation of he charge he brough agains he Scholastics
advocating the doctrine of 'istotle on righteousness by works,
as he gloss o he classic passage (Romans iii. 27) runs as
follows : " For righeoness is no by worl (' no ex operibus
est iustitia '), but vorks are he resul of righteousness, and there-
fore xve do not say : ' he righteousness of works, bu the xvorks
of righteousness.' "=

He does not even trouble to uphold the frivolous accusation
that the Schoohnen had been acquainted only with Aristotelian
righteousness, but actually refutes it by another objection. He
finds fault vith the " scholastic theologians " for having, as he

 S. Thorn., " in Ep. ad Romanos," lect. 1 (on Rom. iv. 2).
 In Rom. iii. 27: " No en.in ex operibus est iustitia, sed ipsa
satyr ex iustitia (see in this connection Luther's statement, p. 43)
ideoqtte not iustitiatt operum sed opera iustitice dicimus." Cp. Denifle-
Weiss, 1 z, pp. 528-30.

152 LUTHER THE MONK
once infers that it declared infused grace to be superfluous, 1
and fm'ther, when, for instance, he asserted that tile axiom
quoted above, and peculiarly beloved of the Occalnists, " Facienti
quod est in se Deus non denegat gratiam," was erroneous, as
though it placed a " wall of iron " between lnan and the grace of
God.  No Occamist understood the axiom in the way he wishes
to make out.

Luthcr went so far in his gainsaying of the Occamist
doctri.nc of the almost uniml)aircd ability of man for purely
natural good, that hc arrived at the ol)positc 1)olc and
began to maintain that there was no such thing as vitally
good acts on man's part ; that nmn as man does not act in
doing what is good, but that grace alonc does everything.
The oldest statements of this sort arc reserved for the
quotations to bc given below from his Commentary on
Romans. We give, however, a few of his later utterances
to this effect. They 1)rove that the crass denial of man's
doing anything good continued to charactcrise him in later
life as much as earlier.

In tile Gospel-hoinilies contained in his "Postils," he teaches
the people that it was a " shameful doctrine of the Popes,
universities, and monasteries " to say " we ought by the strength
of our free will to begin [exclusive of God's help ?] by seeking
God, coining to Him, running after Him and earning His grace."
" Beware, beware," he cries, " of this poison; it is the merest
devil's doctrine by which the whole world is led astray ....
You ask : How then nmst we begin to become pious, and what
must we do that God may begin in us ? Reply: What, don't
you hear that in you there is no doing, no beginning to he pious,
as little as there is any continuing and ending ? God only is the
begimfing, furthering and ending. All that you begin is sin and
remains sin, let it look as pretty as it will ; you can do nothing
but sin, do how you will . . . you nmst remain in sin, do what
you will, and all is sin whatever you do alone of your free
will; for if you were able of your own free will not to sin,
or to do what is pleasing to God; of what use would Christ be
to you ? "
Elsewhere, on account of the supposed inability of man, he
teaches a sort of Quietism : " Is anyone to become converted,
pious and a Christian, we don't set about it; no praying, no
fasting assists it; it nmst conm from heaven and from grace
alone .... Whoever wants to become pious, let him not say:
' I will set about doing good works in order to obtain grace,' but,

 Cp. in Gal. 1, p. 188 scq.
u " SYerke," SVeim. ed., l, p. 272.
a Erl. cd., l0 , p. ll.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 155

3. Positive Influence of Occamism
We have so far been considering the preeipitatc and
excessive antagonism shown a an early date by Luther
towards the school of Occam, especially towards its
anthropological doctrines ; vc have also noted its inllucnce
on his new heretical principles, particularly on his denial
of man's natural ability for good. Nov we must turn our
attention to the positive inllucnee of the Oeeamist teaching
npon his new line of thought, for Luther's errors are to be
ascribed not only to the negative, but also to the positive
effects of his school.
lIis principal dognm, that of justilication, must first be
taken into consideration.
This he drew up entirely on the lines of a scheme handed
down to him by his school. It is no uneonmmn thing to
see even the most independent and active minds tearing
themselves away from a traditional train of thought in one
particular, and yet continuing in another to pursue the
aeeustomed course, so great is the l)owcr which a custom
acquired at school possesses over the intellect. The simi-
larity existing between Luther's and Oceam's doctrine of
the iml)utation of righteousness isquite remarkable. Oeeam
had held it., at least as possible, that a righteousness existed
which was merely imputed ; at any rate, it was only beeause
God so willed it that sanctifying grace was necessary in the
present order of things. IIe and his school had, as a matter
of fact, no dear perception of the SUl)crnatural habit as a
supernatural principle of life in the soul. According to the
Oeeamist Peter d'Ailly, whom Luther repeatedly quotes
in his notes on Peter Lombard, reasou cannot be convinced
of the necessity of the SUl)ernatural habit; all that this is
supposed to do can be done equally well bv a naturally
acquired habit; an unworthy man might be found worthy
of eternal life without any actual change taking l)laee in
him ; only owing to an acceptation on God's part (" a sola
diviza acceptatioze") does the soul become worthy of
eternal life, not on account of any created cause (therefore
not on aeeount of love and grace).  " The whole work of
 Cp. the passages from Oeeam, d'Ailly and Biel h Denifle-Veiss,
1 =, p. 591 ft. To the texts there quot.ed from Oeeam must be added
those from 3 Sent., q. 8, A., where, " de ecessitate habituum super-
aturalium," he establishes three conclusions: I. Their necessity

158 LUTHER THE MONK

factor, not, however, the faith which is animated by charity,
and this because, with thc Occamists, hc rejects all super-
natural habits. /-Ic extols the value of faith on every occasion
at the expense of the other virtues, x
The positive influcncc of Occam on Luther is also to be
traced iu thc domain of faith and knowledge. Luther
imagines hc is fortifying faith by laying stress (n its SUpl)osed
Ol)l)(sition to reason, a tendency which is manifest already
in his Commcatary on Romans. In this Occam and his
scho(l wcrc his models.

The saying that there is much in faith which is " plainly
against reason and the contrary of xvhich is established by faith "'-
comes from d'Ail]y. Occam found the arguments for the exist-
ence of one God inadequate.  Biel has not so much to say
against these proofs, but he does hold that the fact that one only
God exists is a nmtter of faith not capable of being absolutely
proved by reason, a
Occam, whom Biel praises as "multm clarus et latus," made
fai,h to know almost everything, but the results achieved by
reason to be few and unreliable.  He employed the function of
reason, of a caustic reason to boot, in order to raise doubts, or
to exercise the mind at the expense of the truths of revelation ;
yet in the positive recognition of articles of faith he allowed
reason to recede into the background. In any case he prepared
the way for the saying, that a thing lnay be false in theology
and yet true in philosophy, and vice versa, a proposition con-
demned at the 5th Lateran Council by the Constitution A,postolici
Regiminis of Leo X. 
Luther came to state clearly that " it was quite false to say
the same thing was true in philosophy and also in theology";
whoever taught this was fettering the articles of faith " as
prisoners to the judgment of reason. '' We shall have to speak
later of ninny examples of the violent and hateful language with
which he disparages reason in favour of faith. His love for the
Bible at an early period strengthened in him the idea--one which
the Occmnists often advanced in the course of the dialectic
criticism to which they subjected the truths of religion--that
after all, the decisions of faith are not the same as those of the

 Denifle-Veiss, ibid., p. 606.
o, In 2 Sent. in princ. : " 3lulta, qce apparent manifeste contra
ationem, et qorum opposita sut cosona fidei."
s Qtmdlib. I, q. 1 : " Non potest demonstrative probari, quod tantum
u8 est et8."
a 1 Sent., dist. 2, q. 10, concl. 3, F.
 Denifle-Weiss, 1 , p. 608.
 Raynald., "Annal.," a. 1513, n. 92 sq.; Mansi, "Coll. conc.,"
32 p. 842 seq.
 Drews, " Disputationen Luihers," p_ 487, No. 4-6, from the
Disputation on January 1 I, 1539.

160 LUTHER THE MONK

Staupitz spoke from feeling and not from a clear perception
of facts when, in his admiration, hc praised Luther as
exalting Christ and IIis grace. IIc applauded Luther, as
the latter says "at the outset of his career": " This
pleases mc in your teaching, that it gives honour and all to
God alone and nothing to man. Wc cannot ascribe to God
sufficient honour and goodness, etc. ''1 Staul)itz sought for
enlightenment in a certain mysticism akin to Quictism,
instead of in real Scholasticism. On such mystic by-xvays
Luther was sure to fall in with him, and, as a matter of fact,
from the point of view of a false mysticism, Luther was to
denounce " rationalising wisdom " and to speak in favour
of religious feeling cvcn more strongly than hc had done
before.
Under the influence of both these elements, a quictistic
mysticism and an antagonisni to reason in matters of faith,
his scorn for all natural works grew. This made it caster
for him to regard the mtural <)rdcr of human powers as
having bccn completely upset by original sin. More and
more hc comes to rccognisc only an al>pcarance of natural
virtues; to consider them as the poisonous bl<)ssoms of
that unconquerable selfishness which lies ever on the watch
in the heart of man, md is only to be gradually tamed by
the justifying grace of God. The denial of all freedom,
under the ban of sin, little by little becomes for him the
principal thing, the " summa eausa," which, as he says in
so many words, he has to defend. - Beside the debasement
of reason and [he false fancies of his mysticism, stood as a
worthy companion the religion of the enslaved will; this
we find present in his mind from the beginning, and at a
later period it obtained a lasting monument in the work
" De servo arbilrio," which Luther regarded as the climax
of his theology. 
But there arc other connecting-links between Oceamism
and the errors of the young Monk.
a So Luther relates, In Gal. 2, p. 103.
 " Totius summce christianarum return." So the Weim. ed., 18.
p. 614. " Opp. Lat. vat.," 7. p. 132, in " De servo arbitrio."
a This is the work which Albert Ritsehl, the vell-lmoa Protestant
theologian, summed up as follows on account of the contradictions
which i contained: " Luther's work. 'De servo arbitrio," is. nd
remains, an unfortunate piece of bungling." " Die christl. Lehre yon
der Rechtfertigung und VersShnung." 1 -, t3onn, 1882, p. 221. See
below, vol. it., xiv. 3.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 161
According to Oceam's school tile purely spiritual at, tri-
butes of God cannot be logically proved; it does not con-
sider it as l>rovcd llcrelv by rcasou that God is the last and
illll eJld of allan, a|l(l that out.idc of ]lira there is 11o real
human hapl/incss , nor even, according to Oeealn himself,
that " any final cause exists on account of which all thiugs
hapl)e n ,, ;1 not only, according to him, must we be on our
guard agaiust ally idea that reason eau arrive at God as the
origin of hapl)inc.s an(l as the end of salvation, but cveu
lIis attributes we must 1)cvarc of exaluilfing philool)hiell)-.
God's outward action knows no lav, hut is purely arbitrary.
Thus Occalnism, with its theory of the arhitrarv Diviue
Will, lnanifcstiag itself ill the act of " aeecl)tation" or
imputation, was luore likely to 1)r(duee a servile fcclilg of
depcndcuee ou God than any childlike relationship; with
this corresponded the feeling of the utter worthlesucss of
lnan's own works ill relation to imputation, which, abso-
lutely Sllcaking, lnight have been other thau it is,
It i highly probable that the bewildered soul of the young
Augustinian greedily lent all car to such ideas, and lalloured
to make them meet his own needs. The douhts as to pre-
destination which tormented him were certainly not lhcrcby
diminished, but rather iuereased. IIow could tile idea of
all arbitrary God have been of any use to hiln ? In all
likelihood tile al)l)rchcnsivcness and obscurity which eolours
his idea of God, ill the Colmncntary on Ioluans, was due
to notions imbibed by hiln ill his school. Luther was later
oil to express this conception ill his teaching regarding the
" Deus abseonditus," oil wholn, as the source of all pre-
destination (even to hell), we may not look, and whom we
mav only tilnidly a.dorc. Already ill the Conllnclltary
referred to he teaches the absohlte predestination to hell
of those who are to be danmcd, a doctrine which no Oeeamist
had vet ventured to put forward.
Among the other points of contact between Luther's
teaching and Occamism, or Nominalism, ve may mention,
as a striking cxalnplc, his denial of Transubstantiatioll,
which he expressly associates with oue of the theses of the
Oecamist d'Ailly. Here his especial hatred of the school of
St. Tholnas comes out vel3 glaringly.
x ,, Non potest probari sucienter, quod Deus s.it causa finalis."
Quodlib. 4, q. 2. O1 her Nominalists go still further.
I. --M

162 LUTHER THE MONK
Luther himself confesses later hov the Occamist school had
led him to this denial. 1 When studying scholastic theology he
had read in d'Ailly that the mystery of Christ's presence in the
Sacrament of the Altar wonld be much more comprehensible
could we but assume that He vas present with the bread, i.e.
without any change of substance, but that this was impossible
owing to the unassailable contrary teaching of the Church on
Transubstantiation. The same idea is found in Occam. but of
this Luther vas unaware. Luther criticises d'Ailly's appeal to
the Church, and then proceeds : " I found out later on vhat sort
of Church it is vhich sets up such a doctrine ; it is the Thomistic,
the Aristotelian. My discovery made me bolder, and therefore
I decided for Consfl)stantiation. The opinions of the Thomists,
even though approved by Pope or Council, remain opinions and
do not become arti(-les of faith, though an angel from heaven
should say the contrary ; what is asserted apart from Scripture
and without manifest revelation, cannot be believed. '' Yet in
point of fact the term " Transsubsta**tietio " had been first used
in a definition by the (Ecumenical Latera.n Council of 1215 to
express the ancient teaching of the Church regarding the change
of substance. According to what Luther here says, St. Thomas
of Aquin (vhose birth occurred some ten years later) was re-
sponsible for the introduction of the word and what it stood for,
in other words for the doctrine itself. A little later Luther
solenmly reaffirmed that " Transubstantiation is purely Thom-
istic " (1522). " The Decretals settled the word, but there is
no doubt that it was introduced into the Clmrch by those coarse
blockheads the Thomists " (1541).  Hence either he did not
knov of the Council or its date, or he did not know when St.
Thomas wrote; in any case he was ignorant of the relation in
which the teaching of St.. Thomas on this point stood to the
teaching of earlier ages. He was unaware of the historical fact of
the general adoption of the term since the end of the eleventh
century ; he was not acquainted with the theologians who
taught in the interval between the Lateran Council and St,.
Thomas, and who used both the name and the idea of Tran-
substantiation, and mnong whom vere Albertus Magnus and
Alexander of Hales ; he cannot even have noted the title of the
Decretal from which he derived the knowledge of the existence
of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages, for it
is headed : " Inocentius tertius in concilio generali."
That hc should have made St. Thomas rcsl)onsible for
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that so rudely,
 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; " Opp. Lat. vat.," 5, p. 29,
" De captivitate babylonica," 1520.
 Ibid.
s "' Opp. Lat. vat.," 6, p. 423; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 204. Cow, ira
regem, Hem'icm.
a To Prnce George or John of Anlmlt, June, 1541, "Briefe " (de
Vette), 6, p. 284.
 Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1", p. 614 ft.

CIIAPTER V

THE ROCKS OF FALSE MYSTICIS3I

1. Tauler and Luther

JOIIN TAULEI, the mystic and Dominican 1)rcachcr of
Strasburg, whom Luther so favoured, was quite Catholic
in his teaching ; to attribute to him, as has been done, any
Pantheistic ideas is to do him an injustice, and it is equally
wrong to imagine that he forestalled Luther's llOiOllS
regarding grace and justification. Yet his fanciful and
suggestive mode of expression, his language which voiced,
not the conceptual definiteness of Sehohtstieism, but the
deep feelings of the speaker, often allows of his words being
interpreted in a way quite foreigu to his real meaning. It
was just this depth of feeling and this obscurity which
attracted Luther. As his letters show, he breathed more
freely while perusing Tauler's writings, because they re-
sponded to his natural disposition and his moods, not the
least 1)oint in their favour being the absence in them of
those hard-and-dry philosophical and dialectical mmmerisms
which were hatehfl to him. Without eveu rightly under-
standing it, he at once applied the teaehiug of this nmster
of mysticism to his o n inward condition and his new, grow-
ing opinious; he clothed his own feelings and views in
Taulcr's beautihfl and inspiring words. IIis beloved mother-
tongue, so expertly handled in Taulcr's sermons, was at
the stone time a new means of binding him still more firmly
to the mystic. In Tauler the necessity of the complete
surrender of the soul to the aetiou of God, of indifference
and self-abandonlnent, is strongly emphasised. To free
oneself as far as possible of self; to renounce all confidence
in oneself in so far as this implies self-love and the pride
of the siuful creature; to accept with waiting, longing,
suffering confidence God's ahnighty working, this, with
Tauler as with all true mystics, is the fundamental condition

I66

FRUITS OF MYSTICISM 175

2. Effect of Mysticism on Luther
The study of mysticism was not altogether disadvan-
tageous to Luther, for it proved of use to him in various
WaVS.
First, as regards his grasp of spiritual subjects and their
expression ill words, Trader's simple and heartfelt nmnner
taught him how to clothe his thoughts in popular and
attractive dress. The proof of this is to be found in his
writings for the people and in several of his more carefully
prepared sermons, particularly in the works and sermons
of the first period when the my.tical inlluencc was still
predominant. Also with regard to the common bdy of
Christian belief, so far as he still held fast to the same,
several excellent elements of Catholic mvsticisln stood him
in go(l stead, notwithstanding his inward alienation.
The intimate attachment of the mystics to Christ and their
hinging expectation of sah'ation through the Lord alone,
sentiments which made an immense impression on his soul.
nntwithstanding the fact that he understood theln ill a
one-sided and mistakeu fashion, probably had their share
ill preserving in him to tile very end his faith ill the Divinity
of Christ and ill the salvation lie wronght. They also led
him to esteem the whole ]3ible as the Word of God, and to
hold fast to various other mysteries which some of" the
lleformcrs opposed, for instance, the mysterious presence
of Christ ill the Sacrament, even though they did not
prevent him from lnodifying these doctrines according to
his whim. While Luther retained many of the views rooted
in tile faith and sentiment of earlier ages, the llationalism
of Zwingli was ,nueh more ready to throw overboard what
dkl not appear to be sauetioned by reason ; this came out
especially ill the controversy on the Lord's Supper. The
reason of this was that Zwingli had been trained in the
school of a narrmv and critical Htmmnism ; of mysticism
ill any shape or forln he knew nothing at all.
._lllong the advantages which Luther derived from
mysticism we cannot, however, reckon, as some have done,
his later success against the fanatics ; this success was not
a result of his having overcome their false mysticism by the
true one. By that time he had a.hnost completely given
up his mysticism, whether true or false. He certainly met

MILITANT MYSTICISM 177
ccrning which the other mystics and Taulcr are agreed,
was wanting, viz. above all humility, cahnncss and that
holy indifference, which allows itself to be led by God along
the path of the rules of its calling without any ulterior,
private aims; pcaccablcncss, coml)osure of inind and zeal
in prayer were not his. Vhat mysticism left I)ehind in
Luther was scarcely more than the fragrance of its words,
without any tea.1 fruit. What took root and grcv in him was
rather the hard wood from which lances are made, ready
for every combat that may arise, lIis mysticism itself
gives the impression of beinff part of the ba.ttle which his
antagonism to the Oecamists led him to give to Scholasticism.
Those who contradicted his new ideas---even his lmthcr
monks, like the Erfurt lhilosophcrs and thcologians
appeared to him to be opposed on account of their Scholas-
ticism. The most effective way of escaping or overcoming
them seemed to him the replacing of the older theology by
another, in which, together with lIoly Scripture and St.
Augustine, mysticism should occupy a chief place.
By this, however, xve do not mean that the mysticism of
Luther was merely a fighting weal)on. Frmn his letters we may
gather that he lived in the belief that his new road would con-
duct him to a joyous nearness to God.
The letter is dated I)ecember 14, 1516, in which he exhorts his
friend Spalatin, at the Court of the Elector, to taste in Tauler
" the pure, thorough theology, which so closely resembles the
old, and to see how bitter everything is that is ourselves,"
in order to "discover how sveet the Lord is. '' He is
already so mystically inclined that he will not even advise
his friend in answer to a query, which little religious books
he should translate into Gernmn for the use of the people ;
this advice lay in the counsel of God, as what was most whole-
some for man was generally not appreciated ; hardly was there
one who sought for Christ ; the world was full of wolves (these
thoughts certainly seem to have remained with him in his public
career); we must mistrust even our best intentions and be
guided only by Christ in prayer; but the " swarm of religious
and priests always follow their om good and pious notions and
are thereby miserably deceived."
His letter to George Sl)enlein , which is saturated with an
extravagant mysticism of grace, also belongs to the same
year, 1516. 
On December 4, 1516 (see above, p. 87), Luther finished
seeing through the press the " Theologia Deutsch," which he
 " Briefwechsel," l, p. 74 f.
= April 8, " Briefwechsel," l, p. 28. See above, p. 88.

PREDESTINATION

187

and accompanying grace of G,d. It is, however, clear that
there was in his own soul a dislike for works ; so strong in
fact is his feeling in this regard that he simply calls all works
" works of the law," and cannot bc too forcible in demon-
strating the antagonism of thc A1)ostlc to their Sul)poscd
over-estimati,n. Probably one reason for his selection of
this Epistle for interpretation was that it appeared to him
to agree even better than other biblical works with his own
ideas against " soil'-righteousness." 1Ve must now consider
in detail some of the leading ideas of the Commentary on

2. Gloomy Views regarding God and Predestination
The tendency to a dismal conceltion of God plays, in
combination with his ideas on 1)rcdestination, an incMvc
part in Luther's Commentary on l{omans, which, so far,
has received too little attention. The tendency is noticeable
throughout his early mental history, lie was ncvcr able
to overcome his former temptations to sadness and despair
on account of the possibility of his irrevocable predestination
to hell, suflicicntly to attain to the joy of the children of
God and to the trustflfl rccognitim of God's gencral and
certain will for our salvation. The advice which Staupitz,
among others, gave him was assuredly correct, viz. to take
refuge in the wounds of Christ, and Luther probably tried
to follow it. But wc do not h, arn that hc paid diligent hccd
to the further admonitions of the ancient ascetics, to exert
oneself in the practice of good works, as though one's
predestination depended cntircly on the works one performs
with the grace of God. On the contrary, of set lmrposc, hc
avoided any effort on his own part and preferred the ntis-
lcading mystical views of Quictism.
The melancholy idea of predestination again peeps out
unabashcd in the passage in his Commentary on the Psahns,
where he says, that Christ " drank the cup of pain for IIis
elect, but not for all. ''
If he set out to explain the Epistle to the llomans with a
gloomy conception of God, in which we recognise the old
temptations regarding predestination, owing to his lnis-
apprehcnsiol of certain passages of the Epistle concerning

 " Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 227.

SELF-DESPAIR

191

are closely akin to Occam's acceptation-theory, show : " We
must always be filled with anxiety, ever fear and await the
Divine acceptance " ; for as all our works are in themselves evil,
" only those arc good which God imputes as good; they are
in fact something or nothing, only in so far as God acccpts t, hen
or not." " The eternal God has chosen good works from the
beginning that they should please Hiln," 1 ,, but how can [ ever
know that my deed pleases (led ? How can I even know that n W
good intention is fron God ? "- Hence, away with the proud
self-righteous (" superbi iustitiarii ") who are so sttrc of their
good works !
Fear, desponding humility and self-annihilation, according
to Luther, arc the only feelings one can cherish in front of this
terrible, unaccountable God. a " He who despairs of himself is
the one whom God accepts." 
He also speaks of a certain " payor Dei," which is the founda-
tion of salvation : " trepidare et terreri " is the best sign, as it is
said in Psalm cxliii. : " Shoot out Thy arrows and Thou shalt
trouble them," the " terrens Deus " leads to life.  True love d-cs
not ask any enjoyment from (;od, rather, he here repeats, ho-
ever loves Hinl from the hope of t)eiug made eternally hal)l)y by
Him, or from fear of being wretched without Him, has a sinful
and selfish love (" amor concupiscentice "); but to allow tile
terrors of God to encompass us, to be ready to accept from
Hinl the most bitter interior and exterior cross, to all eternity,
that only is perfect love. And even with such love wc are
dragged into thick interior darkness. 

All these gloomy thoughts which cloud his mind, gather,
when he comes to explain cha.1)tcrs viii. and ix. of the Epistle
to the Romans, where the Apostle deals with the question
of election to grace.
Luther thinks he has here found in St. Paul the doctrine
of predestination, not only to heaven, but also to hell,
expressed, lnoreovcr, in the strongest terms. At the same
time he wa.rns his hearers against faint-hcartcdlcSS, being
well aware how dangerous his views might prove to souls.
" Let no one immerse himself in these thoughts who is not
purified in spirit., lest he sink into an abyss of horror and despair ;
tile eyes of the heart must first be purified by contenq)lating tile
wounds of Christ. I discourse upon these naatters solely because
tile trend of the lectures leads up to them, and because they are
unavoidable. It is the strongest wine there is, and the most
perfect food, a solid nourishment for the perfect ; it is that most
exalted theology of which the Apostle says (1 Cot. ii. 6) : 'we

'' Schol. l%ora.," p. 221.
Ibid.. p. 221.
Ibid., p. 214.

Ibid.. p. 323.
Ibid., p. 223.
Ibid., pp. 215-20.

CONTINGENCY AN ILLUSION 1.93
tion be possiblc to him who rcally belicves himsclf dcstincd
to hell, and who sees evcn in his rcsignation no moans
whcrcby hc can cscal)c it ?
To such a onc cvcn thc " womds of Christ" offer no
assurancc and no place of rcfugc. Thcy only spcak to man
of thc God of rcvelation, not of thc mystcrious, nnscarchablc
God. Thc untcnablc and insulting comparison bctwccn thc
mystcrious and thc rcvcalcd Sul)rcmc Bcing which Luther
was latcr on to institutc is hcrc alrcady forcshadowcd.
lie Cxl)lfins in detail how thc will of man docs not in thc
lcast belong to thc pcrson who wills, or thc road to thc
runncr. " All is God's, who givcs and crcatcs the will."
We arc all instruments of God, who wrks all in all. Our
will is likc the saw and the stickcxa.lnlflCs which hc rc-
pcatcdly Clnploys la.tcr in his harshcst uttcranccs conccrning
thc slavcry of thc will. Sawing is thc act of thc lmnd which
saws, but thc saw is passivc; thc animal is bcatcn,
not by the stick, but by him who holds thc stick. So thc
will also is nothing, but God who wMds it is cvcrything. 
IIcnec hc rcjcets most positively the thcological doctrinc
that God forcsces the final lot of nm.n as something " con-
tingeterful.urzcm," i.e. that besees his rejection as something
dependent on man and brought abeut by his own fault.
No, according to Luther, in the election of grace everything
is preordained " inflexibili ct firma rol,ntate," and this,
IIis own will, is alone present in the mind of God.
Luther speaks with scorn of " our subtle theologians," who
drag in their " contingens "' and build up an election by grace on
" necessitas conseq,entiee, sed non conseque,tis," in accordance
with the well-known scholastic ideas. " With God there is
absolutely no 'co, tingens,' but only with us; for no leaf ever
falls from the tree t,o the earth without the will of the Father."
Besides, the theologians--so he accuses the Scholastics without
exception--" have imagined the ease so, or at least have led to
its being so imagined, as though salvation were obtained or lost
through our own free will." 
We know that here he was wrong. As a matter of fact, true
Scholasticism attributed the work of salvation to grace together
with free will, so that two factors, the Divine and the hmnan,
or the supernatural and the natural, are nmtually engaged in the
same. But Luther, when here reporting the old teaching, does
not mention the factor of grace, but only "nostrum arbitriun."
tie then adds: " Thus I once understood it." If he really
a " Sehol. 1R.om.," p. 225. 0" Ibid., pp. 208, 209, 210.

194 LUTHER THE MONK

ever believed salvation to be exclusively the xvork of free will,
then he erred grievously, and nerely proves how defectixTe his
st, udy, even of Gabriel Biel, had been.
He also int,erpr(-ted quite xvrongly the view of contemporary
and earlier scholastic theologians ou the love of God, and, agaiu,
by excluding the supernatural factor. He reproaches them with
having, so lie says, considered the love iu question as merely
natural (" ex ncttttra ") and yet as wholesome for eternal life, and
lie demands that all wholesome love be made to 1)roceed " ex
Spirittt Sancto," a thing vhich all theologians, even the Occam-
ists, had insisted on. He says : " they do not know in the least
what love is, ''a " nor do they know what virtue is, because they
allow themselves to be instructed on this poiat by Aristotle,
vhose definition is absolutely erroneous."-" It makes no im-
1)ressiou ul)on him--l)erhal)s he is even ignorant of the fact--
that the Scholo,stics consider, ou good grouuds, the love which
loves God's goodness as goodness towards us, and which makes
personal salvation its motive, COml)atible with the lerfect love
of f'iendshi l) (amiciti(v, complacentice).  According to him, this
love must be extirl)ated ("amor exstit'pandtts ")because it is full
of abominable self-seeking.  In its place he sets u l)  most
perfect love (which will be described below), which includes
resignation to, and even a desire for, hell-fire, a resiguation such
a.s Christ Himself malaifest,ed (!) in His abandonnaent to s(fffering.
Luther had nov left the safe path of theological and ecclesi-
astical tradition to l)ursue his o'n ideas.
It is true that, notwithstanding his exhortation to 1)e resigned
to the holy -ill of God in every case, he looks -ith fear at the
flood of blasphemies ,hich must arise in the heart of one who
fears his on irrevocable, undeserved damnation. Anxious to
obviate this, or to arm the conscience against it, when pointing
to the wounds of Christ he adds these words : " Should anyone,
owing to overmastering temptation, come to blaspheme God,
that would not involve his eternal damnation. For ex-en towards
the godless our God is not a God of impatience and cruelty. Such
blasphemies are forced out of a man by the devil, therefore they
may be more pleasing to God's ear than any Alleluia or song of
])raise. The more terrible and abominable a blasphenay is, the
more plemsing it is to God when the heart feels that it does not
acquiesce in it, i.e. when it is involuntary. ''
Involuntary thoughts, to 'hich alone he sees fit, to refer, are,
of course, not deserving of l)unishmeut ; but are the nattrmurs
and angry complaints against predestination to hell of 'hich he
sl)eaks ahvays only involuntary ? The way to 'esignatiou which
he naentions in the san]e connection is no less questionable. It

x "Schol. Rom.," p. 219.  Ibid., p. 221.
a Bonaventure, in iii., dist. 27, a. 2. q. 2 : " Amot" concupiscentioe
o repugat anori amicitioe i caritttte," etc. Cp. Thong. Aquin.,
2-2, q. 23, a. 1.
a " Schol. Rom.," pp. 210, 218.
 Ibid.. p. 227.

196 LUTHER THE MONK

may not pride himsclf on his mcrits, and thc damncd may
only bcvail his dcmcrits. '' In his mcditations on thc evcr-
inscrutable mystery he rcgards the sinncr's fault, as cntircly
voluntary, and his revolt a,gaiust the ctt.rmd God as, on
this account, worthy of ctcrnal damnali,)n. Augustine
tcachcs that " to him as to cvery man who comcs into this
world " sah-ation was offcrcd with a wcalth of mcans of
gracc and with all thc mcrits of Christ's bittcr dcath on thc
(_'rOSS. 2
Luthcr also quotcd thc Biblc passagcs rcgarding God's
will f" thc salvation of all mcm but ]y in ordcr [o say of
thcm: " such cxprcssions arc ahvays to bc undcrstocd
cxclusivcly of thc clcct." It is mcrcly " wisdom of the
flcsh " to attcmpt to find a will of God that all mcn bc savcd
in thc assurancc o[ St. Paul: " G(d wills that all men
shall bc savcd " (1 Tim. ii. ), or " in thc passagcs which
say, that ]Ic gavc His Son for us, that Hc crcatcd man for
eternal life, and that cvcrything was crcatcd for man, but
man for God that hc might cnjoy ][hn ctcrnally. ''

Other objections which Luther nakes he sets aside with the
same facility by a reference to the thoughts he has developed
above, a Thus the first : Bq W did God give to man free will by
means of which he can merit either reward or punishment ? His
answer is : Where is this free will ? Man has no free will for
doing what is good. Then a second objection : " God damns no
one without sin, and he who is forced to sin is damned unjustly."
The answer to this is new : God ordains it so that those who are
to be danmed are gladly, even though of necessity, in sin (" dat
voluntarie velle in peccato esse et ?anere et diligere iniquitatem ").
Finally, the last objection: " Why does God give them com-
mandments which lie does not will them to keel), yea hardens
their will so much that they desire t.o act contrary to the law ?
Is not God in this case the cause of their inning and being
dmnned ? .... Yes, that is the difficulty," he admits, " which, as
a matter of fact, has the most force; it is the weightiest of all.
But to it the Apostle makes a slecial answer xx hen he teaches :
God so wills it, and God Who thus wills, is not evil. Everything
is His, just as the clay belongs to the lotter and waits on his

x ,, Schol. Rom.," p. 230, and Autst., "Enchiridion ad Laurent.,"
c. 98, Migne, P. L., xl., p. 278.
 S. Aug., "Contra Iulianum," 6, n. 8, 14, 24; " Opus imperf.,"
l, c. 64, c. 132 seq., 175 ; " De catechiz, rudibus," n. 52 ; " De
spiritu et litt.," c. 33 ; " Retract," l, c. 10, n. 2. Cp. Cornely, p. 494,
ou some exegetical peculiarities of Augustine.
a " Schol. lom.," p. 212.
 Ibid., p. 213.

210 LUTHER TIIE MONK
I-Ie gives the following exhortation with great emphasis and
ahnost as though he had made an astounding discovery : " Who-
ever goes to confession, let him not believe that he gets rid of his
burden and can then live in peace. ''t His nexv doctrine of sin,
xvhieh he discloses in the stone passage, lies at tile bottom of this ;
the baptised and the absolved must on no aecotmt forthwith
consider themselves free from sin, on the contrary " they nmst
not fancy themselves sure of the righteousness they have obtained
and allow their hands to drop listlessly as though they were
not conscious of any sin, for they have yet to i3ght against it and
exterminate it with sighs and tears, with sadness and effort." 
" Sin, therefore, still remains in the spiritual mau for his
exercise in the life of grace, for the humbling of his pride, for the
driving back of his presumption; whoever does not exert
himself zealously in the struggle against it, is in danger of being
condenmed even though he cease to sin any more (' sine dubio
labet, ude damnetur '). .Ve must cm'ry on a war with our
desires, for they are culpable (' culpa '), they are really sins and
render us worthy of dmnnation ; only the mercy of God does not
impute them to us (' imputare ') when we fight nanfully against
them, calling upon God's grace. ''s
There arc few passages in the Commentary where his false
conccl)tion of the entire corrul)tion of human nature by
original sin and concupiscence comes out so plainly as in the
words just quoted. V'e see here too how this conception
leads him to the denial of all liberty for doing what is good,
and to the idea of inaputation.
We can well understand that he needed St. Augustine to
assist hiln to cover all this. And yet, as though to em-
phasise his own devious course, he quotes, among other
passages, one in which Augustine confutes the view of
any sin being present in lnan simply by reason of con-
cupiscence.
" If ve do not consent to concupiscence," Augustine says, " it
is no sin in those ho are regenerate, so that, even if the '_Non
concupisces' is infringed, yet the injuuetion of Jesus Siraeh
(xviii. 30) 'Go not after thy lusts' is observed. It is merely
a manner of speaking to call concupiscence sin (" modo qttodam
loquendi "), because it sprang from sin, and, when it is victorious,
causes sin. '' To this statement of the Father of the Church,
which is so antagonistie to his own ideas, Luther can only add :
t "Sehol. Born.," p. 179.
 Ibid., p. 178. See above, p. 209, n. 1.
a Ibid., p. 178.
 Ibid., p. 181. The passage quoted from Augustine is in " De
nuptiis et cocupiscentia ad I'alerium," 1. 1, e. 23 ; Migne, P. L., xliv.,
col 428.

HUMBLE TRUST 219
" It is certain tliat God's elect will be saved, but no one is certain
that he is chosen."
Luther repeatedly represents the feeling of despair (under the
name of " humilitas ") as not merely a means of reeognising the
ilnputation of God and thereith one's salvation, but even as in
itself the only means which can lead to salvation. He praises
"hmnility " in mystical language as something man must
struggle to attain and as the ideal of the devout. It occupies
ahnost the same place in his mind as the "sola tides" at a
later date.
That " humility " is to him the actual factor hich obtains
the imputation of the merits of Christ and thus makes the soul
righteous and wins for it eternal salvation, is apparent not only
from the above, but also from the following utterances : " When
we are convinced that we are unrighteous and without the fear
of God, when, thus hulnbled, we acknowledge ourselves to be
godless and foolish, then xc deserve to be justified by I-{iln. ''x
The fear of God works humility, but humility makes us tit for all
[salvation]; we must merely rcsign otu'selves to the admission
that " tliere is nothing so righteous that it is not unrighteous,
nothing so true that it is not a lie, nothing so pure ihat it is not
filthy and profane before God. ''=. "Let us be sinners in humility
and only desire to be justified by the mercy of God." He alone
who acknowledges liis entire unrighteousness, ho fears and
beseeches, he alone, " as an abiding sinner," opens for himself the
door to salvation, a
We must believe everything that is of Christ, lie says, and
only he does this who htunbly bewails his o n utter unrighteous-
heSS. a The mystic star of "lnunility "  hich has arisen to him
he even describes as the " vera tides," and makes the following
inference: " As this is so, we must humble ourselves beyond
bounds." " Wlien we have hmnbled ourselves wholly before
God, then we have fulfilled righteousness, wholly and entirely
(' totam perfectamqe iustitiam ') ; for what else does all Scripture
teach but hmnility ? "
Luther ascribes to " humility " all that he later ascribes to
faith; " all Scripture," which now teaches humility, will later
teach that faith is the only power which saves. In that very
Epistle to the 1Romans, hich at a later date was to be the
bulwark of his " sola tides," he can as yet, in 1515 and 1516, find
only "sola humilitas." ]-Iis frequent exhortations to self-
annihilation and despair of one's o n efforts, exhortations taking
the form of fulsome praise of one particular kind of liumility,
must be traced back to mystical influcnce and to his irritation
against the " proud self-righteous."
It is true that Luther had. from the very l)cgilming of
his exposition, as thc cdittr of thc COmlnentary justly
points out, " taken his stand against thc scholastic [rather
x ,, Sehol. 1Rom.," p. 84. - 1bid., p. 83.  1bid., p. 89.
a 1bid., p. 86 f. s 1bid.. p. 39.

DISREGARDS CHURCH'S DOCTRINE 223

8. Subjectivism and Church Authority. Storm and Stress

Subjcctivism plays an important par in the cxposition
of the Epistle to the Romans.
It makes itself felt not merely in Luther's treatment of
the Doctors and the prevalent theological opinions, lint also
in his ideas concerning the ('hutch and her authoritv. We
emmot fail to see that the Church is begimfing to take the
second place in his mind. Notwithstanding the mmwrous
long-decided controversial questions raised iu the Com-
mentary, there is hardly any mention of the teaching office
of the Church, and the reader is not made aware that with
regard to these questions there existed in the Church a fixed
body of faith, established either by actual dclinition or by
generally aeeel)tcd theological ol)inion. The doctrine of
absolute predestination to hell, for instance, had long before
been authoritatively repudiated in the decisions against
Gottsehalk, but is nevertheless treated by Luther as an
open question, or rather as though it had been decided in
the armative, thus making of God a cruel avenger of
involuntary guilt.
The impetuous author, following his mistaken tendency
to independence, disdains to be guided by the heritage of
ecclesiastical and theological truth, as the Catholic professor
is wont to be in his researches in theology and iu his ex-
planations of tIoly Scripture. Luther, though by no means
devoid of faith in the Church, and in the existence in her of
the living Spirit of God, lacks that ecclesiastical feeling which
insl)ircd so ninny of his contemporaries in their speculations,
both theological and philosophical; we need only recall
his own professor, Johmm Paltz, and Gabriel Bicl to whom
he owed so much. Impelled by his subjcetivism, and careless

at rely definite certainty of salvation " (p. 195), and that his statements
are not " in touch with the saving faith of the I/eformation" (ibid.); lie
finds, however, in the fear which Luther demands, " an clement for
overcoming the tmcertainty with regard to salvation" (p. 198),
indeed, he even thinks (p. 199) that '" lie had practically arrived at a
certainty of salvation." So much may be admitted, that the incom-
pleteness of the system contained in the Commentary led Luther at a
later period to add to his numerous other errors, that of absolute
certainty of salvation by " faith alone." With this our position is
made clear with regard to Holl's article '" Heilsgewissheit im Yl6mer-
briefkonunentar," in the "Zeitschr. f. Theol. mid Kirche," 20, 1910,
p. 245 ft., where the doctrhe of assurance is dated as far back as 1516
(p. 290).

230 LUTHER THE MONK
subject to all (by charity). 1 Yet, both in thc Commentary
on Romans and in the works which were soon to follow,
" the willing servant " is more and more ousted by raise
ideas of independence, so that a danger arises of only the
" free master of all thigs " rcnmining. In the Commentary
on Romans all exterior submission to the Church is, in
princil)le , menaced by a liberty :hich, appealing to the
inward experience of the Word mad a dccpcr conceptioa of
religion, seeks to overstep all barriers.
The confused ideas for which hc was beholden to his
pseudo-mysticism wcrc in great part the cause of this and
of other errors.

9. The Mystic in the Commentary on Romans
Since the al)pearancc iu print of Luther's Commentary on
Romans it has bccn 1)ossiblc to perceive more clearly the
omim,us power xvhich false mysticism had gaincd over the
young author.
lIis misal)prchension of some of the l)rincipal elements
of Taulcr's sermons and of the "Thcologia Dcutsch" stands
out in sharp relief in these lectures on the Pauline Epistle,
and wc scc more plainly how the obscure ideas hc finds in
the mystics at once amalgamate with his own. The con-
ncction between the pseudo-mysticism which hc has built
u l) on the basis of truc mysticism, and the method of theology
which hc is already 1)ursuing, al)pcars hcrc so great, and he
folh)ws so closely the rather elastic figures and thoughts
provided by the mystical science of the soul, that we are
almost tempted, after reading his exposition of the Epistle
to the Romans, to ask whether all his intellectual mistakes
wcrc uot an outcome of his mysticism. The fact is, however,
that hc began his study of lnysticism only after having
commcuccd fornmlating the principles of his new world
of thought. It was only after the ferment had gone on
working for a considerable time that hc chanced Ul)On certain
mystic works. Yet, strange to say, the mysticism with
which hc then became acquainted was not that German
variety which had already been infected with the errors
of Master Eckhart, but the sounder mysticism which had
avoided the pitfalls. It is a tragic coincidence that mysti-
a " Wea'ke," geim. ed., 7, p. 49. De libcrtatc chritiana.

232 LUTHER THE MONK
pcriences. Mysticism it is which lends its deep and fiery
hue to his thoughts; where Luther is describing tile nlost
intilnate proeesses and gives their highest expression to the
thoughts which inspire him, it is mysticism which is speaking
through him . . . the eoml)lete and uneonditional surrender
of man to God. ''1
Luther gives in a peculiar fashion his reasons for taking such
a standpoint: " The Nature of God demands that He should
first destroy and annihilate everything there is in us before He
imparts His gifts. For it is written: 'The Lord maketh poor
aud maketh rich, Me bringeth dowu to hell and bringeth back
again.' By this most gracious plan Ho renders us fit for the
reception of His gifts and His works. IVo are then receptive
to His works and plans when our o13-11 plaus and our own works
have ceased, and we become quite passive towards God (' quando
nostm cosilia cessnt ct opera quiescunt et eicimur pure passivi
rcspccta Dei ") both as regards exterior and interior activity.
Then the uttcrallc sighs commeuee, then the ,_lnnt
comes and helps our infirmity.' "' It is iu the description of
this " sufl'ering and bearing of God " that he expressly quotes
Tauler as the teacher of the higher form of prayer, adding:
"" Yes, yes, 'we know not how we should pray,' therefore the
Spirit is necessary to assist us in our weakness." " As a woman
remains 1)assive in conception, so we must remain passive to
the first, grace and eternal salvation. For our soul is Christ's
bride. Before grace, it. is true, we pray and implore, hut when
grace comes and the soul is to be impregnated by the Spirit, then
it, nmst neither pray uor act, but only endm'e. To the soul this
seems hard and it is downcast, for that the soul should be without
act of the understmding and the will, that is lnueh like sinking
into darkness, destruction and mmihilatiou (' in perditionem et
anniIilatiotem ') ; from this prosl)eet she shrinks back in horror,
but in so doing she often deprives herself of the most precious
gifts of grace. ''a
It was just on this point that Luther most completely mis-
apprehended Tauler. It is true that this mediaeval mystic speaks
strongly against any too great esteem of humau activity, and
that he also recommends the spiritual man, in certain eiremn-
st.anees, to " refuse all exterior works the better to devote himself
with the necessary submission and in entire peace " to interior
communication with his Maker and Highest Good, and, as he
says, " to suffer God. '' But he does not thereby recommend
man to long after a state without thought or will, or after mere
nothingness--in order to magnify God and His powers alone;
according to Tauler, grace does not work in the soul " without
the eo-operat.ion of the understanding and the will."
 P lxxxii. " " Sehol. 1Rein.," p. 203.
 Ibid., pp. 205, 206.
 Cp. Braun, " Coneupiseenz," p. 281, 286.

MANKIND UTTERLY CORRUPT [?] 233

The Quenching of the " Good Spark in the Soul "
Luther in the above recommendation to passivity falsely
assumes that the soul is entirely eorrul)tcd by original sin
and only offends God with its acts. This also appears clearly
in the Commentary on Romans. Protestants thcmseh'es
now admit that Luther deviated from the standpoint of the
orthodox mystics, particularly from that of Tanler, and
that " in the view of the m.vsties of the Middle Ages there
is no doubt that tlte natnral good in man outweighs the
natural evil. The central point in which all the lines of
mystic theology converge is this indestructible goodness."
So speaks a Protestant theologian. 
In Gerson, the mystic whon Luther had studied iu his early
days a.t Erfurt, he must have net with the beautifnl teaching,
that the soul had received fronl (od a natural tendency towards
what is good, that this is " the virginal portion of the soul,"
which is the " som'ee and seat of mystical theology." "- Tauler
is fond of treating of this " noble spark of fire in the soul," of
" this interior nobility xvhich lies hidden in the depths. ''a The
Scholastics, too, unanimously teach this disl)osition to good
which remains after original sin.
Luther, when opposing the good tenden(.y, attacks only the
Scholastics, not the mystics ; he declares that all the errors on
grace and nature  hieh he has to withstand entered through the
hole hieh the Scholastics nade with their " syntheresis. ''
One thing is certain, viz. that he was wrong in foisting his view
of the absolute corruption of the human race on the mystics ;
" he could not.," the Protestant theologian a.bov, referred to
adrift.s, " quite truthfully invoke the support of the mystics for
his assertions. ''n The doctrines which Taulcr advances in the
very context iu which his blame of the self-righteous oectu's,
viz. that there is no righteousness without personal acts, that
even the sinner can do what is good, that he, more especially,
must prepare himself for the grace of justification, pass unheeded
in Luther's exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. " Luther
overlooked this series [of testiluonies given by Tauler]; only
the statements regarding the righteous by works made any im-
pression on him; his polemics are directed against those who
serve two masters, who wish to please God and the world and
to do great things for God's sake : these are the people who are
at hem't satisfied with themselves." n

x Braun, p. 296.  Ibid., p. 297.  Ibid.
 On the syntheresis, see above, p. 75. When Luther, on the
st.rengt.h of lomans ii., nevertheless, recognises " that natural religion
exerts the force of conscience in the hearts of the heathen," he is
contradicting himself without being aware of it. (Bram, p. 300.)
s Braun, p. 296.  Ibid., p. 28.

238 LUTHER THE MONK
condit.ion. 1 Thus his idea of the aright of t.he soul is quite
different froln that of the lnystics, though he describes it
in ahnost the salne words, and, thanks to his ilnagination
and eloquence, possibly in even nlore striking eolours.
Several times in his Colnmentary Oil Romans he repre-
sents resignation to, indeed even an actual desire for,
damnation--should that be tile will of God--as something
grand and sul)linle. Therel)y he thinks he is teaching the
highest degree of resignation to God's insel'utable will;
therel)y the highest step on the ladder of self-al)negation has
been attained, hi reality it is an ideal of a frightful char-
acter, far worse avail than a return to nothingness. He lets
us see here, as he does so often in other matters, how greatly
his tnrbulent spirit inclined to extrenles, z
" If men willed what flod wills," he writes, " even though He
should will to dmnn and reject them, they would see no evil in
that tin the predestination to hell which he teaches] ; for, as
they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation,
the will of God in them." Does he mean by t.his t.hat they
should resigu themselves to hating God for all eternity ? Luther
does not seem to notice that hatred of God is an essential part
of the condition of those who are danmed (" damari et reprobari
ad infernum "). Has he perlaaps come to conceive of a hatred
of (lod proceeding from love ? He seems almost to credit those
who think of hell, with a resolve to bear everything, even hatred
of God, with loving submission to the will of I-Iim Who by His
predestination has willed it.
He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by pre-
destination to hell, that resignation to eternal lmnMmaent is,
for the truly wise, a source of " ineffable joy " ("ineffabili
itcditate in i'ta materia delcctattr"); for the perfect this is
" the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the
greatest bitterness, " because under charity the cross and suffering
is always understood." Bnt all, he says, even the half-imperfect,
a Cp. Luther's appeal t.o Tauler : " JDe ista paticttia JDei et suffcrentia
vide Tatdcrtm.,'" eta. (see above, p. 232). Dcuifle, 1 , p. 484, remarks :
" The above statements are in part founded on Tauler, whom
Luther misunderstood throughout. The two stood on different grotmd
and had a different starting-point and a different goal."
 In allusion to such doctrines, Dcnifle speaks (Denifle, 1, p. 486)
of " Luther's worse than morbid, yea. terriMe theology." The passages
in Tauler which have been alleged to show that his teaching was
similar to that of Luther on this point, have quite a different sense.
Tauler did not. recognise the undeserved reprobation which Luther
presupposes ; he makes the horrible misfortune of eternal reprobation,
which culminates in hatred of God, a result, of voluntary separation
from Him in this life.
 " Sehol. Rom.." pp. 213, 223.

240 LUTHER THE MONK

greater than that of all the saints. His sufferings were not easy
to Him, as some have imagined, because I-Ie actually and in
truth offered I-Iimself to the eternal Father to be cousigned to
eternal danmation for us (' quod realiter et vere se in eter.nam
damnationem obtulit Deo patri foro nobis '). His human nature
did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be
condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God,
God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He over-
came hell (' eum suscitavit a tmrte et iferm et sic momordit
i(ferum" ; cp. Osee xiiL 14). All His saints nmst follow this
example, some more, some less; and according to the degree
of their perfection in love they find this harder or easier. But
Christ 1)ore the most severe form of it (' durissime hoc fecit '),
and for this reason He laments in many passages (in the Messianic
Psahns) the lmius of hell."*

In the li.ffht of passages such a.s these we can understand
to some cx|cnt lhc lurid, f:m('ihfl, mystic dcscril)tion which
he gives enrlv in 1518, clcnrlv on the strength of his own
states of mind. lie tells how a man fancies himself at
certain moments phmgcd into h(.ll, and feels his breast
picrecd by all the pangs of everlasting despair, because hc
apprehends (;od's " frightful ire " and the impossibility of
ever 1)cing delivered. This gr)tcsquc picture of a soul,
with which wc shall dcnl nmrc fully later, although it is
partly taken ahnost word for word from the earlier de-
scriptions of the mystics, reveals its morbid character more
especially 1)y the fact, that the hope, which, in the case of
the devout, remains in the depths of the soul even throughout
the most severe interior trials, seems entirely al)sent. God
is seen as lie appeared to Luther, i.e. as an inexorable,
arl)itrary punisher of His creature. =
Luther's mysticism is veritably a mysticism of despair
md the " humilltas," with its love ready even for hell,
which he belauds as the anchor of safety, is a forced ex-
pedient really excluded ly his system, md which he himself
discarded as soon as he was aide to replace it 1)y the (god-
given) tides, in the shape of faith in personal justification
and salvation.

" Schol. Rom., p. 218 f.
The frequently quoted description is to be found in " lVerke,"
Weim. ed., l, p. 557 f.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES

243

use of the "exegetical ability" of Nicholas of Lyra, 1
following him for the tcxt as well as for the intcrl)rctation
and division of the subject; this was the author whose
assistance hc had formerly declined with far too nmch
contempt. Other authorities whom hc also consults arc
Paul of Burgos, Peter Lombard, for his cxplanations of the
Epistle to the Romans, and, for the division of the matter,
particularly the Schemata of Fabcr Stalmlensis. ]Iis own
linguistic training and his knowledge of ancient literature
were of great service to him, as also was his natural quickness
of judgment combined with sagacity. ]Ic frequently quotes
passages from St. Augustine, and through him, i.e. at second-
hand, from Cyprian and Chrysostom ; in his iulcrl)retations
tim mc(licval authorities ()f whom he makes most use arc
the Master of the Sentences and St. l{crnar(l. 2 The way
in which Aristotle aud the Scholastics arc handled is drcady
plain from what we have said. Reminiscences of the works
of his own 1)rofcssors, Paltz, Trutfettcr and Usingen, are
merely general, and hc freely differs from them. As an
Occamist he feels himself in contradicti)u to the Thomists
and to some extent als() to the Scotists; in addition to
Occam, d'Ailly, Gcrson and Biel have a great iullucncc on
him, even in his intcrl)rctation of thc Bil)lc. Taulcr. wh()
has so frequently been mentioned, also ]cft dec l) traces (f
his influence not only in the matter of the Commentary, but
also in the language, which is often obscure, rich in imagery
and full of feeling, while here and there wc sccm to find
reminiscences of the " Thcol)gia Dcutsch " which Luther
was to publish at the chsc of his lectures. The latter wns,
" to his thinking, the most exact CXl)rcssion of the great
thoughts of the Epistle to the l()mans. ''z
From a learned ])oiut of view his exegesis would prol)nbly
have been different and far more reliable had he consulted
the famous Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the
Epistlc to the Romans, not merely for thc division of his
subject, but also for the matter. This Commentary hcht
the first place, as regards clcarncss and depth of thought.
among previous expositions, yet not once does Luther quote
it, and, probably, he had ncvcr Ol)cncd the work for the

j. Ficker ia the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.
For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.
Thus Ficker, p. lxii.

28 LUTIIER THE MONK
he nmst go on from virtue to virtue and, a.s the Apostle
says, be renewed from day to day by constantly mortifying
the members of his flesh and offering them as the weapons
of righteousness for sanctification.
In his Commcntary on Romans Luthcr a.lrcady breaks
away from tradition, i.e. from thc whole growth of the past,
even on matters of the utmost moment, and this not at all
to the advantage of theology ; not merely the method and
nmdc of expression does hc oppose, hut cvcn the very
substance of doctrine.
Protestant thcohNy, following in his footsteps, went
further. Many of its representatives, as wc shall scc,
honestly expressed their serious doubts as to whether the
Bible teaching of sanctification by gracethat process
which, according to the scriptural descriptions just quoted,
takes l)lacc in the very innermost being of ma.nis really
expressed correctly by the Lutheran doctrine of the iml)uta-
tion of a lmrcly extraneous righteousness. But even to-day
there arc others who still SUpl)ort Luther's views in a
slightly modified form, and who will have it that the
scholastie and later teaching of the Church is a. doctrine of
mere nmm, as though she made of saving grace a magical
power, of which the agency is ba.ptism or absohtion. It
is truc that the process of sanctification as a.lprchcndcd by
faith is to a large extent involved in impenetrable mystery,
but in Christimfity there is nmch else which is mysterious.
It is pcrhal)s this mysterious clement which gives offence
and aceouuts for Catholie doctrine being deseribed hy so
opl)robrious a word as " magie." Some Protestants of the
same school are also given to 1)raising Luthcrin terms
which arc also, though in another sense, mysterious and
obscurcfor having fr()m the very outset arrived a.t the
grca.t idea of grace peculiar to the llcformcd theology, viz.
at the " exaltation of religion above morality." I[e was
the first to ask : " How do I stand with regard to lny God ? "
and who made the discovery, of which his Commentary on
Romans is a forcible proof, that it is " man's relation to
God through faith which creates the purer a.tmosphcre in
which alone it is possible for morality to thrive."
arrived, so we are told, at an apl)rchcnsion of grace as
merciful consideration of the abiding sinner," and a. true
" consolation of conscience "; hc at the same time rccog-

INDWELLING SIN
niscd grace as an "educative and lnOtl]ding energy," which,
as such, imparts " strength for sa.nctification. ''a

To return to the exegetical side of the Commentary on
Romans, the confusion in which the ideas are presented
lends to much of it a stamp of great imperfection. There is
a general lack of cautious, intelligent COlnl)rt,hcnsion of the
material, which sometimes is concerned with the tenderest
questions of faith, sometimes with vital points of morals.
The impartial observer sccs so many traces of passion,
irritation, storm and stress that hc begins to ask himself
whether the work has any real theological value.
The passage, Romans vii. 17, regarding the indwelling of sin in
man (" habitat in me pectum ") Luther, in the interests of his
system, makes use of for an attack upon the Scholastics (" nostri
theologi "). e attributes to them au interpretation of the l)assagc
which was certainly not theirs, and, from his own interl)retation,
draws strange and quite unfounded inferences. According to
the interpretation commonly adnfitted by ahnost all exegetists,
whether Catholic or Protestant, St. Paul is here speaking of the
unregenerate man in whom sin dwel, preventing him from
fulfilling the laxv. Luther, on the contrary, asserts that the
Apostle is alluding to himself and to the regenerate generally,
and he quot, from the context no le than twelve proofs that
this is the correct inrpreta.tion.* Schohties either referred
the passage, like St.. Augustine, to the righteousiu whom ou
account of the survival of the "fomes pcati " sin iu some
sense dwells, even the righteous being easily led away by the same
to sin--or they left the question open and allowed the vee to
refe to those who are not justified.
Luther, delighted by his discovery of the survix-al of original
sin in man after baptism, could not allow the Ol)l)ortunity to
slip of dealing a blow at the older theologians : " Is it not a fact
that the fallacious metaphysics of 'istotle--the 1)hilosol)hy
which is built u l) on human trationhas blinded our theo-
logians ? They fancy that sin is destroyed in Baptism and in
 " Educative " grtee which imparts " strength " is probably what
we call actual grace, not sanctif) ing grace. Luther nmkcs no distinction
either  regards the term or the umtter. H dctermiaism, xxith its
" servum arbitrium,'" left no room for actual grace to perform any real
work ; this he admits more plainly of the time preceding justification
titan of that which follows it. Cp. "Schol. Rom.," p. 206 : " Ad primam
graliam sicut et ad gloriam semper hoe habemus passive sict muller ad
conceptum," etc. It is here he iutroduces his " mystical " recom-
mendation, viz. to suffer God's strong grace, and without my ct of
re,on or will " in. tenebra8 ac veha in perditionem et annihilationem, ire,"
however lmrd that nmy be. Here we find nothing about any "educative
nd moulding euergy."
 "" Schol. om.," pp. 170-6.

256 LUTHER THE MONK

false secm'ity." (" Securi stertimus, freti libero arbitrio quod ad
manure habentes, quando volumus, possumus pie intendere.") 1
Hero he will only admit that man has freedom to pray for the
right use of his freedom. But, as a matter of fact, oven this
liberty which might incite us to prayer, is non-existent. For
in respect of anything that is good [whether natural or super-
natural, he makes no distinction] we are only like raw metal or a
wooden stick. Because God's grace is the hand which works in us
for good and which performs our vital acts within us, while we
ourselves are quiescent and absolutely powerless, Luther says
in Romans iii. : "I have frequently insisted before upon the
fact, that it is ilnpossible for us to have of ore'selves the will or
the heart to fulfil the law." Why ? " Because the lav is
spiritual." Meditation on man's euslaved condition as he
result of concupiscence, he declares in another passage, proves
lny contention, no less han the terrible truth of predestination.
" Lntlmr felt in hilnself that belief in the eternal predestination
by God [absolute election to grace] was the most powerful
support of his experience of the eolnplete inadequacy of hmnan
works and the cflieaey of grace alone." The Protestant theologian 
who says this, to instance Luther's faith in the action of grace,
here quotes from the passages froln the Colnmentary on Romans,
according to which God on the one hand bestows His grace only
on those He chooses, but on the other hand infallibly saves those
He elects to save. " The Spirit," Luther has it, " supports the
latter by His presence iu all their weaknesses, so that they
prevail iu circumstances where they would oherwise despair a
thousand times. '' It is, however, relnarkable hat just after
this explanatiol the cry bursts from Luther's lips : " Where are
now the good works, where the freedom of the will ? " Here tlm
irresistible " action of grace aloue " al)pears as a direct con-
sequence of Luther's then views, though he refrains from ex-
pressing himself lnOre clearly as to the nature of actual grace.

Thus in his mind are combined two widely divergent
ideas, viz. that God does everything in nmn who is devoid
of frccdomand that lllall must draw nigh to God by
prayer and works of faith. It is a strange 1)sychological
1)h('lmnmnon to scc how, instead of cndcavouring to solve
the contradiction and examine the question in the light of
cahn reason, he gives frcc play to feeling and imagination,
now passionately proving to the infamous Obscrvants that
man is absolutely unable to do anything, now insisting on
the need of preparatiol for grace, i.e. UlmOnsciously be-
coming the defender of the Church's doctrine of free will
and human co-operation. The fact is, hc still, to some extent,

"Schol, Rom.," p. 321.  Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 34.
See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.

258 LUTHER THE MONK
of Christ, the sinfulness of the natural man and his inability
to do what is good, and likewise predestination to hell in its
most outrageous form--it is natural to infer that Luther
had already forsaken the Catholic doctrine on these points
at the time he was preparing his lectures on the Epistle
to the Romans, i.e. about the summer of 1515. ]Iis mis-
apprehension of this Epistle must have had its influence on
his whole trend, and the elements already at work in his
mind helped to decide him to commit to writing in his
Commentary his supposed new and important doctrinal
discoveries.
We might expect to find in the Commentary the lnOSt
noticeable progress where he deals with preparation for
grace, for this was surely the point on which he was bound
to come into conflict with other doctrines. It is, however,
bard to tell whether he rcalised the difficulty. It is true
that much less stress is laid upon preparation for justification
as the work proceeds, whereas at the eommeneemelt the
author speaks unhesitatingly of the cultivation of the will
which must be undertaken in order to bring down grace.
(See above, p. 214.) This, however, might merely be
accidental and due to the fact that, in the last chapters,
St. Paul is dealing mainly with the virtues of the justified.
Towards the end of the Epistle, in connection with what
the Apostle says on charity and faith in the righteous, the
nature of that " lmmilitas " which Luther so eulogises as a
prelilninary and accompaniment of the appropriation cf
the righteousness of Christ undergoes a change and appears
more as faith with charity, or charity with faith. Luther's
maimer of speaking thus varies according to the subject
with which Paul is dealing.
If we take the middle of the year 1515 as the starting-
point of Luther's new theology, then many of the statements
in his Commentary on the Psahns, especially in its latter
part, become more significant as precursors of Luther's
errors. The favourable view we expressed above of his
work on the Psalms, as regards its agreement with the
theology of the Church, was only meant to convey that a
Catholic interpretation of the questionable passages was
possible ; this, however, cannot be said of the theses in the
Commentary on tlomans which we have just been con-
sidering. We now understand why unwillingness to allow

260 LUTHER THE MONK

the struggle for chastity the little bark is tossed hither and
thither on the waters, while [according to the gospel] Christ
is asleep vithin. Rouse Christ so that He may command the
sea, i.e. the flesh, and the wind, i.e. the devil." 1 In the public
Indulgence theses of 1517, he is also careful not to express his
erroneous views on grace and the nature of man. It is character-
istic of him how he changes even the form of expression when
repeating an assertion which is also made in the Commentary on
Romans. In the Commentary he had vritten, that too great
esteem of outward works led to a too frequent granting of
Indulgences, and that the Pope and tlie ]3ishops were more cruel
tlmn cruelty itself if they did not freely grant the same, or even
greater Indulgences, for God's sake and the good of souls, seeing
that they themselves had received all they had for nothing.  This
violent utterance here appears as the expression of his own
opinion. In the theses, liowever, he presents the same view to
the public with much greater caution; he says, these and
similm" objections brought forward by scrupulous laymen, were
caused, contrm'y to the wishes of the Pope, by dissolute Indulg-
ence preachers ; one might hear "such-like calumnious chm'ges
and subtle questions froln seculars," and they must" be taken into
account and answered." a

The ideas contained in the Commentary on Rolnans are
also to bc met with in the other lectures which followed.
Of this the present writer convinced himself by glancing
through thc Vatican copies. Thc approaching publication
of the copies in the '"Anf:ange rcfornmtorischcr Bibelaus-
lcgung," of Johann Ficker, a work which commenced
with the Commentary on Romans, will supply further
details. The character of the Wittenberg Professor is,
however, such that we may expect some surprising revela-
tions. Generally speaking, a lnovement in the direction of
the doctrine of " faith alone " is noticeable throughout his
work.
In view of Fieker's forthcoming edition it will suffice to
quote a few excerpts from the Comlnentary on the Epistle
to the llebrews of 1517, according to the Vatican BIS.
(Pal. lat. 1825). a They show that the author in his exegesis
of this Epistle is imbued with the same idea as in the Com-
mentary on Romans, lmmcly, that Paul cxa.lts (in Luther's
x ,, Verke," Weim. ed., l, p. 486.
 " Schol. Rona.," p. 243.
a Thes., S1 seq., 90. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 291 seq. Weim. ed., 1,
pp. 625, 627.
 Regarding this hiS. see Fieker's Introduction to the Com-
mentary on Romans, p. xxix. f.-

CHAPTER VII

SOME PARTICULARS WITII REGARD TO ThE OUTWARD
CIRCUIISTANCES AND INWARD LIFE OF LUTnER AT THE
TIME OF THE CRISIS

1. Luther as Superior of eleven Augustinian Houses
IIs election as Rural Vicar, which took place at the con-
vocation of the Order at Gotha (on April 29, 1515), had
raised Luther to a position of great ilnportance in his
Congregation.
IIc had, within a short tilnc, risen from being Sub-Prior
and Regent of thc Wittenberg House of Studies to bc the
chief dignitary in the Congregation aftcr Staupitz, the Vicar-
Gcncrah Thc office was conferred on hiln, as was custonmry,
for a period of three years, i.e. till May, 1518. Of the
clcvcn monasteries which formed the District the two most
ilnportant and influential werc Erfurt and Vittenbcrg.
The others wcre Dresden, IIcrzbcrg, Gotha, Langcnsalza,
Nordhauscn, Sangershausen, Magdeburg and Neustadt on
thc Orla, to which Eislcben was added, whcn, in July, 1515,
Staupitz and Luther presided at thc opening of a ncw
monastery there. As Staupitz was frequently absent from
the District, the demauds made on the activity of the new
Superior were all the greater.
At this tilnc too his professorial Bible studies and his
efforts to clear up the confusion and difficultics existing in
his lnind must have kept hiln fully occupied. In addition
to this therc was the dissension within thc Order itself on
the question of observancc and of thc constitution, a dis-
putc which required for its settlement a lnan filled with
zeal for the spiritual welfare of the lnonasteries, and one
thoroughly devoted to the exalted traditional aims of
the Congregation.
Thc mordant discourse on the " Little Saints " which
the fiery Monk delivered on May 1 at the Gotha meeting
262

264 LUTHER THE MONK
tary to the Elector. :He readily undertook the management
at Court of the business iu connection with the priories
under Luther's supervision, and, later on, eoutrived by his
influeuee in high quarters to promote the spread of the
religious innovations.
The letters which Luther wrote as Vicar he signed, as a
rule, "Frater Martinus Luther," though sometimes "Luder,
Augustinensis," usually with the additiou " Viearius," and
on one oeeasiou " Viearius Distrietus," which, ueedless to
say, does not meau " the strict vicar " as it has been ntis-
translated, but refers to his offiee as Rural Vicar of the
District.
In these letters, chiefly in Latin, which Luther addressed
to his mouastcrics, we meet with some pages containing
beautiful and inspiring thoughts. There can be no question
that he knexv how to intervene with euergy where abuses
called for it, just as he also could Sl)cak words of eousolation,
eueouragemeut aud kindly admonitiou to those in fault.
The letters also contain some exhortations, well-worded
and full of piety, tending to the moral advancement of
zealous members of the Order. The allusions to faith in
Christ, our only help, and the absolute iuadequaey of human
effort, are, however, very frequeut, though he does not here
express his new theological opinions so definitely as be
does in expouudiug St. Paul.
To Johann Lang, vho, s Prior of the Erfttrt house, met with
ninny difficulties from his subordinates, he wites confforting and
consoling him : " Be strong and the Lord will be with you ; call
to mind that you are set up for a sign which shall be contradicted
(Luke ii. 34), to the one, indeed, a good odottr unto life, to
another an odottr of death (2 Cor. ii. 16). ''x At Erfttrt, as the
stone letter shows, he hd to intervene in the interests of discipline.
In order that no complaints might be brought against the Prior
by the brethren on account of the expenses for food and drink in
entertaining guests mad for the keep of those who collected the
ahns (terminarii) he orders ma exact account to be kept of such
expenses; the hostel for guests might, lm says, become  real
dnger to the monastery if not properly regulated ; the monastery
must not be tttrned into a beer-house or tavern, but must remain
a religious house. To uphold " the honottr of the Reverend
Father Vicar," Stupitz, he directed that three conttunacious
monks should be removed, by way of punishment, from Erfttrt
to a less important convent. On the occasion of some un-
pleasantness which Lang experienced from his brother monks,
x May 29, 1516, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 37 f.

266 LUTHER THE MONK

stricken. I shall send the brothers away and distribute them
should the mischief increase; I have been appointed here and
obedience does not allow of my talcing flight, unless a new order
be imposed on me to obey. Not as though I do not fear death,
I am not a Paul but merely an expounder of Paul ; but I trust
that the Lord will deliver me from my fear." 1
Vhen a member of the Teutonic Order sought for admission
into the Augustinian house at Neustadt, Luther instructed the
Prior there, Michael Dressel (Tornator) to observe very carefully
the ecclesiastical and conventual regulations provided for such
a case. " We must, it is true, work with God in the execution of
this pious project," he writes, " but we shall do this not by
allowing the ideas of the individual, however pious his intentions
may be, to decide the matter, but by carrying out the prescribed
law, the regulations of our predecessors, and the decrees of the
Fathers : whoever sets these aside need not hope to advance or
find salvation, however good his will may be." 
This Prior also had complained of the ntmerous contrarieties
which he experienced from his subordinates, and that he was
unable to enjoy any peace of soul. Luther says to him among
other firings :3 ,, The man whom no one troubles is not at peace,
that is rather the peace of this world, but the man to whom people
bring all their troubles and who nevertheless remains cahn and
bears everything that happens with joy. You say with Israel :
' Peace, peace, and there is no peace ! ' Say rather with Clu'ist :
the cross, the cross, there is no cross.  The cross will at once
cease to be a cross when a man accepts it joyfully and says:
Blessed cross, sacred wood, so holy and venerable! . . . He
who with readiness embraces the cross in everything that he
feels, thinks and understands will in time find the fruit of his
suffering to be sweet peace. That is God's peace, under which our
thoughts and desires must be hidden in order that they may be
nailed to the cross, i.e. to the cross of contradiction and oppression.
Thus is peace truly established above all our thinng and
desiring, and becomes the most precious jewel. Therefore take
up all these disturbances of your peace with joy and clasp them
to you as holy relics, instead of endeavouring to seek peace
according to your own ideas."
When Luther afterwards visited the monastery of this same
Prior, on the occasion of an official visitation, he found the
community estranged from its head. He did not at that time
take any steps, but after a few weeks he suddenly removed
Michael Dressel from his office. In confidence he informed
Johann Lang, rather cryptically, that: "I did this because I
hoped to rule there myself for the half-year." Do the words

1 "Briefwechsel," 1. p. 68.  Jtme 22, 1516, ibid., p. 42.  Ibid., p. 43.
 Cp. Luther's Indulgence theses, 92 and 93, where " pax, pax,'
and "crux, crux" are repeated in the same way. "Opp. Lat. var.," 1,
p. 291. " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 628.
 October 26, 1516, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 68: " eci ideo, quod
sperabam, me ipsum illic ad medium annum regnaturum."

QUICK DESPATCH OF BUSINESS 267

perhaps mean that he was anxious to secure a victory for that
party in the Order which was devoted to himself and opposed to
Dressel, who on this hypothesis vas an Observantine ? tIis
action was peculiar from the fact that his letter addressed to the
conmaunity at Neustadt and to Dressel hinself gave no reason
for the measure against the Prior other than that the brothers
were unable to live with hiln in peace and agreement; the Prior,
he says, had always had the best intentions, but it is not enough
for a Superior to be good and pious, "it is also necessary that the
others should be at peace and in agreement with him " ; when a
Superior's measures fail to establish concord, then he should
revoke them. 1 Still more unusual than such advice was the
circmnstance that Luther would not allov the Prior to nmke any
defence, and cut short any excuses by his sudden action. In
another letter to the monks he justified his measure simply by
stating that there vas no peace. In short, the rebellious monks
speedily got the better of the Superior whom they disliked. The
ex-Prior, Luther tells him, must on no account mtu'nur because
he has been judged without a hearing (" quia te non auditum
htdicaverim"); he hilnself (Luther) was convinced of his good
will and also hoped that all the imnates of the convent wcre
grateful to hiln for the good intentions which he had displayed.
In the new election ordered by the Rural Vicar, Heinrich Zwetze
vas chosen as Prior. Of the latter or hov the matter ended
nothing more is known.

The office of Rural Vicar required above all, that, when
nmking his regular visitation of the religious houses, the
Vicar should have a personal iutcrvicw with each brother,
hear what hc had to say, and give him any spiritual direction
of which he might stand iu need. Wc learn the following
of a visitation of tiffs kind which Luther made in 1516:
At the Gotlm monastery the whole of the visitation occupied
only one hour; at Langcnsalza two hours. Hc informs
Lang : " In these places the Lord will work without us and
direct the spiritual and temporal affairs in spite of the devil." u
He at once proceeded on the same journey to the house
at Nordhauscn and then on to those at Eislcbcn aud Magde-
burg. In two days the Rural Vicar was back in his beloved
Wittenberg. There is no doubt that such summary treat-
ment of his most important duties was not favourablc to
discipline.
At Leitzkau the Augustinians possessed rights over the
large fisheries and Luther was intimate with the local
Cistercian Provost. When the Provost, George 5lasko',
1 September 25, 1516, "t3riefwechsel," 1, p. 51.
z May 29, 1516, ibid., p. 38.

268 LUTHER THE MONK
asked him how hc should behave towards a brother nonk
who had silmcd grievously, seeing that he himself was a still
greater offender, Luther replied, saying, among other things,
that hc ought certainly to punish hiln, for, as a rule, it was
necessary to cxcrcise discipline towards those who are
better than ourselves. " We are all children of Admn,
therefore wc do the works of Adam." But " our authority
is not ore's, but God's." Perhaps God desired to help
that brother on the road of sin, namely, through shame.
" It is God Who does all this. '' And in another letter he
says to the Provost :" " If many of your subjccts arc on the
way to moral ruin, yet you must not for that reason disquiet
them all. It is better quietly to save a few .... Let
thc cockcl grow together with the wheat . . . for it is
better to bear with the many for the sake of thc few than
to ruin thc few on account of the many." In a mystical
vein hc says: " Pray for me, for my life is daily drawing
nearer to hell (i.e. the lower world, ' inferno appropinquavit,"
Ps. lxxxvii. 4), as I also bcc0me worse and more wretched
day by day. ''a
Bodily infirmities wcrc then pressing hard upon him in
consequence of his many labours and spiritual trials, while
much of his time was swallowed up by his lectures which
wcrc still iu progress.

2. The Monk of Liberal Views and Independent Action

With regard to his own life as a religious and his con-
eeption of his calling Luther was, at the tilne of the crisis,
still far removed from the position which he took up later,
though we find already in the Commentary on Romans
views which eventually could not fail to place him in oppo-
sition to the religious state.
What still bound him to the religious life was, above all,
the ideal of humility, which his mystical ideas had developed.
He also reeognised fully the binding nature of his vows.
According to him man cannot steep himself sufficiently in

 May 17, 1517, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 99.
 Undated (1516 ?), ibid., p. 77.
 From the latter months of 151.6, ibid., p. 76 : " Confiteor tibi, quod
vita mea in dies appropinquat inferw, quia quotidie peior rio et
miserior."

ON THE RELIGIOUS LIFE 269

his essential nothingucss before the Et.crnal God, and vows
are an expression of such submission to the Supreme Being.
" To love is to hate and condenm oneself, yea even to wish
evil to oneself." " Our good is hidden so deeply that it is con-
eealed under its opposite; thus life is hidden under death, real
egotism under hatred of self, honom" under shame, salvation
under destruction, a kingdom under exile, heaven under hell,
wisdom under foolishness, righteousness under sin, strength
under weakness; indeed all ore" afl3a'mation of any good is
concealed under its negation in order that faith in God, Who is
the negation of all, may remain supreme . . . thus 'our life is
hidden with Christ in God ' (Col. iii. 3), i.e. in the negation of all
that can be felt, possessed and apprehended .... That is the
good which we must desire for ourselves," he says to his brother
monks, " then only are we good when we reeognise the good God
and our evil self. ''
lie says elsewhere regarding vows : " All things are. it is true,
free to us, but by means of vows we can offer them all up out of
love ; xvhen this has once taken place, then they are necessary,
not by their nature but on account of the vow which has been
taken voluntarily. Then we nmst be careful to kee l) the vows
with the same love with which we took t.hcna upon us, otherwise
they are not kept at all."  In many points he goes further than
the Rule itself in the mystical demands he makes upon the
members of the Order.

In other respects Luther's rcquirclncnts not only fall
far short of what is necessary, but even the ordinary lnonastie
duties fare badly at his hands. If it is the interior word which
is to guide the various actions, and if without the " spirit "
they are nothing, indeed would be better left undone, then
what place is left to the common observance of the monastic
Rule and the mmaerous pious practices, 1)rayers and acts
of virtue to which a regular time and place are assigned ?
From the standpoint of his pseudo-mystical perfection
he eritieises with acerbity the recitation of the Office in
Choir ; also the " unreasonableness and superstition of
pious founders of benefices," who, as it were, " desired to
purchase prayers " at certain fixed times. Founders of a
monastery ought not to have prescribed the recitation of
the Olce in Choir on their behalf; by so doing they
wished to secure their own salvation and well-being before
God, instead of making their offerings purely for God's
sake. a Such remarks plainly show that hc was already far
x " Schol. Rom.," p. 219 f. - Ibid., p. 317.
 Ibid., p. 291.

274 LUTHER THE MONK

Teachers of Tauler's stamp inculcated on monks and laymen
alike the highest esteem for small and insignificant tasks when
performed in compliance with obedience to the duties of one's state,
whatever it might be. It was unfair to the religious life and at
the same time to true Christian mysticism when Luther at a later
date, after his estrangement from the Order, in emphasising the
works which 1)leas God in the secular life, saw fit to speak as
though this view had hitherto been unknown.
Tauler had smmned up the doctrine ah-eady well known in
earlier ages in the beautiful words: " When the most trivial
work is performed in real and simple obedience, such a work of
an obedient man is nobler and better and more pleasing to God
and is more profitable and meritorious than all the great works
which he may do here below of his own choice."  Every artisan
and peasant is able, according to Tauler, to serve God in perfect
love in his humble calling ; he need not neglect his work to tread
the paths of sublime charity and lofty prayer. The mystic
illustrates this also by a little anecdote : " I know one who is a
very great friend of God and who has been all his days a farm-
]abom'er, for more than two score years. He once sked our Lord
whether he should leave his calling and go and sit in the churches.
]ut the Lord said No, and that he was to earn his bread with the
sweat of his brow and thus honour His true and noble ]lood.
Every man nmst choose some suitable time by day or by night
dm'ing which he may go to the root of things, each one as best
he can." 

Luther, during the time of his crisis, was not only a monk
of dangerously wide views, but he was also inelincd to take
liherties in practice.
There is a great dearth of information with regard to the
way in which Luther practised at that time the virtues of
the religious life, and from his own statements we do not
learn much. tie complains, in 1516, to his friend Leiffer,
the Erfurt Augustiuian : "I mn sure and know from my
own experience, from yours too, and, in fact, from the
general experience of all whom I have seen troubled, that
it is merely the false wisdom of our own ideas which is the
origin and root of our disquietude. For our eye is evil,
and, to speak only of myself, into what painful misery has
it brought me and still eoutinues to bring me. ''
Luther, whose capacity for work was enormous, flung
himself into the employments which pressed upon him.
lie reserved little time for self-examination and for culti-
vating his spiritual life. Iu addition to his lectures, his
 Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 283.  Ibid.
: April 15, 1516, " Briefwechscl," 1, p. 3I.

276 LUTHER THE MONK
Breviary, was enjoined as a most serious duty not merely
by the laws of the Church, but also by the constitutions of
thc Augustine Congregation. Tile latter declared that no
excuse could bc alleged for thc omission, and that whoever
neglected thc canonical Itours was to be considered as a
schismatic. It is incomprehensible how Luther could
dispense himself from both these obligations by alleging
his want of time, as, according to his Rule, sl)iritual exercises
especially in the case of a Sul)crior, took 1)rcecdcnce of all
other duties, and it was for him to give an exanll)lc to others
in the punctual 1)crformance of the same.
Thcrc was 1)robably another reason for his omitting to
celebrate Mass.
[lie felt a rcl)ugnanec for the IIoly Sacrifice, perhaps on
account of his frc(lucnt fits of anxiety. IIc says, at a later
date, that he never took pleasure in saying Mass when a
lllonk; this statement, however, eamlot be taken to ill-
elude the very earliest 1)criod of his priestly life, when the
good cl'fccts of his novitiate were still apparent, for one
reason ])ccausc this would not agree with the enthusiasm
of his letter of invitation to his first Mass.

Religious services generally, he says in 1515-16 to the young
monks, with a boldness which he takes little pains to conceal,
" are iu fact to-day more a hindrance than a hell)" to true piety.
Speaking of the manner of their performance he says with mani-
fest exaggeration, that it is such as to be no longer prayer. " "Ve
only iusult God more when ve recite them .... "Ve acquire
a false security of conscience as though we had really prayed,
and that is a terrible danger ! '' Then he goes on to explain
" Ahnost all follow their calling at the present day with distaste
and without love, and those who are zealous place their trust
in it aud merely crucify their conscience." He speaks of the
" superstitious exercises of piety " which are performed from
gross ignorauce, and sets up as the ideal, that each one should be
at liberty to decide what he will undertake in the way of priestly
or monastic observances, mnong which he enumerates expressly
" celibacy, the tonsure, the habit and the recitation of the
Brevim'y."  We see from this that he was not nmch attached
even to the actual obligations of his profession, and we may
fairly surmise that such a disposition had not come upon him
suddenly; these were rather the moral accompaniments of the
change iu his theological views and really date from an earlier
period. We can also recogmise in them the practical results of
his strong opl)osition to the Observantines of the Order, which

x ,, Schol. R.om.," p. 288.  Ibid., pp. 319, 320.

IIIS OUTWARD APPEARANCE 279
he dispensed himself from the Breviary may contain some truth ;
all the facts point t.o the violent though confused st.rugglo going
ou in the young Monk's miud.
Yet Luther speaks ably enough in 1517 of the urgent necessity
of spiritual exercises, more particulm'ly mcditat.ion on the
Scripttu'es, to which the recitation of the Oitlce in Choir was an
int.roductiou : " As we are attacked by countless distractions
from wit.hour., impeded by cares and engrcssed by business, and
all this leads us away fi'om pm'ity of heart, only one remedy
remains for us, viz. with great zeal to 'exhort each other'
(Heb. iii. 13), rouse our shtmbering spirig by the IVord of
reading t.he stone continually, and hearing it as the Apostle
exhorts." Not long after he is, however, compelled to write:
"I know right well that I do not live in accordance with my
teaching." 
The exertions which his feverish activity entailed avenged
themselves on his health, lie became s) thin that one could
cunt his ribs, as the saying is. IIis incessant inward.
anxieties also did their part in undermining his con-
stitution.
The outward appearance of the Monk was specially
remarkable on account of the brilliancy of his deep-set
eyes, to which Pollich, his professor at the University of
Wittenberg, had already drawn attention (p. 86). The
iml)rcssion which this remarkable look, which a.lwavs
remained with him, made on others, was very varied. IIis
subsequent friends and followers found in his eyes something
grand and noble, something of the eagle, while, on the other
hand, some remarks made by his opl)onents on the uncanny
effect of his magic glance will be mentioned later. Anger
intensified this look, and the strange 1)ower which Luther
exerted over those who opposed him, drew ninny under the
spell of his influence and worked upon them like a kind of
suggestion. 
Many remarked with concern on the youthful Luther's
too great self-sueienev.
liis then pupil Johann Oldceop describes him as " a man
of sense," but " proud by nature." " He began to be still
more haughty," Oldeeop observes, when speaking of the
1 ,, Scio qd not vivo qu doceo." To Bishop Adolf of 5Ierseburg,
Febnmry 4, 1520, " Briefwechsel," 2, p. 312.
 5Ielmachthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above,
p. 278, n. 2), p. 326 : "Leo habet oculos Xapoo6 (bright-eyed), Lutheri
oeuli sant apool, et habebant leonem it ascendente (probably " babe-
bat," viz. Luther in his Horoscope). Et talcs plertmqae sunt ingeniosi . .
They were brovn_eyes, " circit circuh 9ilvas."

AVERSION TO PHILOSOPHY 281
tile flesh "; lay attthoritics, moreover, who now begin to
see through OUl" wickedness, ought to seize upon the tem-
poralities of the Church in order that she nmy be set free
to devote herself entirely to the interior Christian life.
Luther's view of the position a, nd actual character of the
worldly powers at that time was al)solutcly untrue to life,
and one that couhl have been cherished only by a mystic
looking out on the world from tile narrow walls of his cell.
A strange sclf-sullicicncy, of which he himself appears to
have bccn utterly unaware, and which is therefore all the
more curious, was at the root of these ideas.
Such a tone unmistakably pervades the projects of reform
expressed not only in the Commentary on Ronmns, but
also in his cxposili(m ()f the Psalms; but a COml)arison of
these two works shows the increased stress which Luther
lays Ul)On his own opin.iou in the later work, and the still
greater inconsideration with which hc rejects everything
which clashes with his views, a fact which proves that Luther
was progressing. In his Commentary on Romans he a,ppeals
formally to the " apostolic authority " of his Doctor's
degree, when giving vent to the most unheard-of vitupera-
tion of tile highest powers, ecclesiastical and lax'.
declares it to be his duty to reprove what he finds amiss ill
all, and ahnost at the same naoment denounces the bishops
who defend the rights of the Church as "Pharaonici, Sathan.-
ici, Behemotici "; so convinced is he that their supposed
abuse of power entitles him to reprove them. 
The language in which the mystic unhesitatingly passes
the severest possible judglnents could scarcely be stronger.
" We have fallen under a Jewish bondage . . . ore" preachers
have concealed from the people the truth regarding the right
way of worslfipping God, and the Apostles must needs come again
to preach to us.""
" When shall we at last listen to reason," he cries, a " and
understand that we nmst spend otu" valuable time more profitably
[tlmn in the study of philosol)hy ] ? 'Ve are ignorant of what is
necessary,' thus we should complain with Seneca, 'because we
merely learn what is superfluous.' Ve renmin ignorant of wlmt
might be of use to us while we busy ourselves wit.h wlmt is worse
x - Sehol. 1Rom.," p. 301.
e Ibid., 19. 317 : " 2Vunc omnes fete desipiunt (this is about the
Chm'eh's fasts) . . . ut rursum (7oopulus) apostolis indigeat ipsis, ut
veram disceret pietatem."
a Ibid., p. 199.

ON DO VN-HEARTEDNESS 289

statement: " Righteousness must, indeed, be sought by works,
but these are not the -orks of the law because they are performed
by grace and in faith." 1
He goes on to mention four classes of men who are led away
by the devil in their esteem al)d practice of -orks.  The first
he ch'aws away from all good works and entangles in manifest
sin. The second, who think themselves righteous, he makes
tepid and careless. The third, also righteous in their own eyes,
hc renders over-zealous and superstitious, so that they set them-
selves up as a class alart and despise others ; they have been
mentioned over and over agai in the above pages, in recounting
his warfare with the Observants, the " Spirituals," the proud
self-right.eous, etc.
The fourth and last class might possibly include himself.
" The fourth class consists of those who, at the instigation of
the devil, desire to be free from any sin, pure and holy. But as
they, nevertheless, feel that they conunit sin and that all they
do is tainted with evil, the devil terrifies them to such an extent.
xvith fear of the judgments of God and scruples of cons'ience that
they almost despai,.'. He is acquainted with each one's disposition
and tempts him accordingly. As they are zealous in the pursuit
of righteousness the devil is unable to turn them aside from it so
readily. Therefore he sets himself to fill them with enthusiasm,
so that they wish to free themselves too speedily from all trace
of concupiscence. This they are unable to do, and consequently
he succeeds in making them sad, downcast and faint-hearted,
yea, even in causing them unendurable anxiety of conscience
and despair."
When prescribing the remedy, he begins to use the first person
phu'al. " Therefore there is nothing for us to do but to make
the best of things and to remain in sin. We must sigh to be set
free, hoping in God's mercy. Vhen a man desires to be cttred
he may, if in too great, a hurry, have a worse relapse. His cure
can only take place slowly and many 'eaknesses must. be borne
with during convalescence. It, is enough that sin be displeasing,
though it cannot be altogether expelled. For Christ bears every-
thing, if only it is displeasing to us ; His are the sins not ore's,
and, here below, His righteousness is our property."
Vc may take that l)ortion of thc description where the
first person is used as an account of his own state. IIcrc he
is describing his own 1)ractice. This 1)assagc, which in
itself admits of a good intcrl)rctation and might bc made use
of by a Catholic ascetic, must be read in connection with
Luther's doctrine that concupiscence is sin. Looking at it
in this light, the sense in which he understands disl)lcasm'e
with sin becomes clear, also why, in view of the ineradicable
nature of concul)isccnce, he is willing to console himself
1 " Schol. 1Rom.," p. 100. "- Ibid., p. 102.

290 LUTHER THE MONK
with the idea that " Christ bears it all." His dislike of
coucupisccncc is entirely different from contrition for sin.
The young Monk frequently felt himself oppressed by an
aversion for concupiscence, but of contrition for sil he
scarcely cvcr speaks, or only ill such a way as to raise serious
doubts with regard to his idea of it. and the manner in which
lie personally manifested it, as the passages about to be
quoted will show. The practice of lnaking Christ's rightcotls-
hess our own, saying, " IIis arc tile sins," etc., he does not
recommend merely ill the case of concupiscence, but also
in that of actual sins ; it should, however, bc noted that the
latter may quite well be disl)lcasilg to us without there
bciug any contrition in the theological sense, 1)articularly
without there being perfect contrition.
Luther is here describing the remedy which he himself
apl)lies iu place of real penance, wholesome contriti(m and
coral)unction. It is to replace all the good resolutions
which strengthen and fortify the will, and all penitential
works done in satisfaction for the guilt of sin, and tiffs
remedy lie begins to recommend to others.
lIis contempt for good works, for zeal in the religious life
and for auy efforts at overcoming self encourage him in
these views. I-Iis new ideas as to ma.n's ilm.bilitv to do any-
thing that is good. as to his want of free will to fight a.gailst
concnl)isccnce and tile sovereign efficacy of grace and
absolute predestination, all incline him to the easy road of
iml)utation; filmily, he caps his syseln by perstmding
himself that ouly by his nexv discoveries, which, moreover,
arc borne out by St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, can
Christ receive the honour which is I-Iis due and His Gospel
come into its rights. Such was Luther's train of thought.
The characteristic position which Luther assulncd in his
early days with regard to penance and the motive of fear,
must bc more closely cxamiucd in order to complete the
above account.
The Monk frankly admits, not oucc but often, that
inward contrition for sin was somcthin foreign, almost
unknown, to him. The statements hc makes concernilg his
confessions weigh heavily in the sc,Ic when wc come to
cm.idcr the question of his spiritual life.
In a pas.age of his Commentary on the Psahns where he would
in the ordina.ry course have been obliged to speak of contrition

300 LUTHER THE MONK
mands, " whether it. be foolish or evil or great or small. ''1
Thus the way is already paved for his mysterious compre-
hension of the Scriptures through the inner word, as his
letter to S1)alatin shows ; we htve also here the beginning
of what he supposed was the ratification (,f his Divine
mission as proclaimer of the new teaching.
Even before much was known of the data furnished by
the Commentary on llomans regarding Luther's develop-
ment, Ft. Loofs, on the strength of the fragncnts which
Deniflc had made public, ventured to predict that, on the
publication of the whole work, it would be seen, " that Luther
was at that time following a road which might justly be
described as a peculiar form of quietistie mysticism. ''
To-day we must go further and say that Luther's whole
character was steeped in ultra-spiritualism.
Johann Adam M6hler says of Luther's public work as
a teacher : " In his theological views he showed himself a
one-sided mystic. ''a lie adds, " had he lived in the second
century Luther would have been a gnostic like Mareion,
with some of whose peculiarities he is in singular agreement,"
a statement which is borne out by what we have seen of
Luther's work so far. Neander, the Protestant historian,
also compares the growth and development of Luther's
mind with that of Mareion.  Neander looks Ul)On Mareion
as Luther's spiritual comrade, in fact as a Protestant,
because he, like the founder of Protestantism, emphasised
the evil in man everywhere, set up an antagonism between
righteousness and grace, between the law and the gospel,
and preached freedom from the works of the law. This
Mareion did by appealing to the gnosis, or deeper knowledge.
Luther likewise bases his very first utterances on this
teaching and appeals to the more profound theology; he
possesses that seductive enthusiasm which Mareion also
displayed at the commencement of his career. Soon we
shall see that Luther, again like Mareion, brushed aside
such books of the Bible as stood in his way; the canon of
Holy Scril)ture must be brought into agreement with his
special conception of doctrine, and he and his lmpils amplified
and altered this doctrine, even in its fundamentals, to such
 See above, p. 95. - See below, p. 323.
 " Deutseh-evangelisehe ]31tter," 32, 1907. p. 537.
a " Kirehengeseh.," ed. by P. Gmns, 3, 1868, p. 106.
 " Kirehengeseh.," 1, p. 782.

AN INCARNATION OF PARADOX 301

a degree, that the svords which Tertullian apl)licd to Mareion
might quite fit Luther too: " mm ct quotidie rcformant
illud," i.e. their gosl)el. 1 Luther at the very outset obscured
the conception of God by his doctrine of absolute 1)rcdestina -
tion to hell. Marcion, it is true, went much further than
Luther in obfuscating the Christian teaching with rcga.rd
to God by setting up an eternal twofold prineil)le , of good
and evil. The ]Vittcnbcrg Professor never dreamt of so
radical a change in the doctrine respecting God, and in
coral)arisen with that of Marcion this part of his system is
quite conservative.
Wc find in Luther, from the beginning of his career,
together with his rather gloomy ultra-spiritualism, ,nothcr
characteristic embracing a mmber of heterogeneous quali-
ties, and which we can only describe as grotesque. Side by
side with his love of extremes, wc find an ultra-couservative
regard for the text of ]Ioly Seril)ture as lie understood it,
no matter how allegorical his pet intcrl)retation might be.
Again, the pious mysticism of his language scarcely a.grccs
with the practical disregard hc manifested for his profession.
To this must be added, on the one hand, his tendency to
spring from one subject to another, ad the restlessness
which permeates his theological statements, and on the
other, his ponderous Scholasticism. Again we have the
digressions iu xvhieh he declaims on public events, and,
besides, his incorrect and unchal'itablc criticisms; here
lie displays his utter want cf consideration, his ignorance
of the world and finally a tempestuous 1)assion for freedom
in all things, which renders him ,ltogcthcr callous to the
vindication of their rights by others and makes him sigh
over the countless "fetters of men. '' All this, takeu in con-
ncetion with his unusual talent, shows that Luther, though
a real genius and a man of originality, was inclined to be
hysterical. IIow curiously paradoxical his character was
is re'ealcd in his cxa.ggcrated manner of spcceh and his
incessant recourse to antithesis.
With an unbomidcd confidence in himself and all too
well aware of the seduction exercised by his splendid talents,
he yet does not scruple to warn others with the utmost
 " Adverstls Mrcion.," 4, e. 5.
o. ,, Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 576 : In the " 'reched study of right
nd law " we find everywhere he confortless feers of precepts.
" 0 reptilia," he cries, " oro to eat humerus ! "

302 LUTHER THE MONK

seriousness ,against their " inclinations to arrogance, avarice
and ambitiou," and to represent pride as the cardinal sin. 1
lie is keen to notice defects iu earlier theologians, but an
unhappy trait of his own blinds him to the fact that the
Church, as the invincible guardiau of truth, must soon rise
u l) agaiust him.
I{c has already discovered a new way of salvation which
is to tranquilise all, aud yet he will be counted, not among
those who fecl sure of their salvation, but among the pious
who arc anxious and troubled about their state of grace,
" who arc still in fear lest they fall into wickedness, and,
therefore, through fear, become more and more deeply
steeped iu humility in doiug which they render God gracious
to them. '' The assurance of salvation by faith alone, the
sola tides of a later date, he still protests against so
vigorously, that, when hc fancies he espies it in his oppo-
nents in any shape or form, he attacks them as "a pestilential
crew," who speak of the signs of grace and thereby, as he
inmgincs, lull mcu into security.
The last words show that the process of development is
not yet ended. What we have considered above was merely
the first of the two stages which hc traversed before finally
arriving at the couception of his chief doctrine, a

I Cp. Braun, " Coneupiscenz," p. 22.
-"," Schol. Rom.," p. 323.
For the second stage, see oh. x. 1-2.

CIIAPTEll VIII

THE COMMENTARY ON TIlE EPISTLE TO TIIE GAI,ATIANS.
FIRST DISPUTATIONS AND FIRST TRIUMPIIS

1. "The Commencement of the Gospel Business." Exposition
of the Epistle to the Galatians (1516-17)
LUTIU.:r,'S friends and admirers were at a later date loud
in their pra.ise of the lectures on the Epistle to the lloma.ns
and on tlmt to the Galatians which he commenced imme-
diately after, a.nd looked upon these as marking the dawn
of a new epoch in theology. Luther himself, with more
accuracy, designated the tirst disputations, of which we
shall come to speak presently, as the "commencement of
the gospel business."
Melanehthon in his short sketch of Luther's life speaks pomp-
ously of these lectures and manifests his entire unacquaintance
with the old Church mad the truths for whieh she stood.
" In the opinion of the wise and pious the light of the new
teaching first broke forth, after  long and dark night, in the
Commentary on these Epistles. There Luther pointed out the
true distinction between the law and the gospel; there he
refuted the Phm'isaical errors which then ruled in the schools and
in the pulpits, nmnely, that man was able to obtain forgiveness
of sin by his own efforts and could be justified before God by the
performance of outward wor. He brought back souls to the
Son of God, he pointed to the Lamb, XXqao bore the guilt of our
sins. He demonstrated that sin was forgiven for the sake of the
Son of God and that sueh a favom" ought to be accepted in faith.
He also shed a D'eat hght on the other articles of faith."x
Mathesius, Luther's pupil and eulogist, in his sermons on
Luther, points out, in the following passionate words, the im-
portance of the lectm'es and disputations held by his master:
" Dr. Luther in all his lectes aud disputations chiefly treats of
this question and artiele, whether the true faith by which we are
to live a Christian life and cHe a happy death is to be learned
from Holy Scripttu'e or from the godless heathen Aristotle, on
whom the Doctors of the Schools attempted to base the doctrine
of the Romish Chtu-eh and of the monks." " This is the chief

 " Vita Lutheri," p. 6.

303

COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS 307

referring to this Epistle, or of the fact that his exposition of
it runs counter to the whole of tradition.
Luther ever had the highest opiniou of the Epistle to the
Ga.la.tiaus and of his own Commentaries on it. At a later
date he says jokingly : " Epistola ad Galalas is my Epistle
to which I have plighted my troth; my own Katey yon
llora." Melanchthon praises Luther's Commentary on
Galatians in a more serious fashion and says, it was in truth
" the coil of Theseus by the aid of which we are enabled to
wander through the labvrinth of biblical learning. ''
Besides the shorter Commentary on Galatians published
in 1519 there is also a nmeh longer one compiled from notes
of Luther's later lectures, made public in 1535 by his pupil
lliirer, together with a Preface by Luther hilnself, a Pro-
testants eonsider it as " the most important literary product
of his aeademie career " aud. in fact, as " the most important
of his theological works. ''a Iu what follows we shall rely,
as we said before, on the sourees which afford the most
accurate 1)ieture of his views, i.e. on both the shorter and
the longer redaetion of his Commentary on Galatians,
especially where the latter repeats in still more forcible
language views already contained in the former.
It is well to know that, iu his expositions of the Epistle
to the Galatiaus, Luther's autagonism to the Catholic
doctrine of Works, Justificatiou and Original Siu is carried
further thau in any other of his exegetical writings, until,
indeed, it verges on the paradoxical. Nowhere else does the
author so unhesitatingly read his own ideas into IIoly
Scripture, or turn his back so eompletcly on the most
venerable traditions of the Church.

For instance, he shows how God by I-Iis grace was obliged to
renew, from the root upwards, the tree of htman nature, which
had fallen and become rotten to the core, in order that it might
bear fruit which was not mere poison and sin and such as to
render it worthy to be cast into hell fire. Everything is lnade to
depend upon that terrible doctrine of Divine Predestination,
which inexorably condenms a portion of mankind to hell. It never
occurred to him that this doctrine of a Predestination to hell was
in conflict with God's goodness and mercy, at least, he never had
the least hesitation in advocating it. The only preparation for
 " Verke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 437.
 See K6stlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.
a In Irmischer's Erl. edition, printed in three volumes.
 Cp. KOstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 300 f.

COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS 309

the least solving the difflculty. 1 He declares that we must
risk, try, and exercise assurance. This, however, merely
depends upon a self-acquired dexterity, 2 upon human ability,
vhich, moreover, frequently leaves even the strongest in the
lurch, as ve shall see later from Luther's own example and that
of his followers.
He goes so far iu speaking of faith and grace in the larger
Commentary on Galatians, as to brand the most sublime and
holy works, namely, prayer and meditation, as " idolatry "
unless performed in accordance with the only true principle of
faith, viz. with his doctrine regarding justification by faith alone.
This can be more readily understood when ve consider that
according to him, man, in spite of his resistance to concupiscence,
is, nevertheless, on account of the same, guilty of the sins of
avarice, anger, impurity, a list to which he significantly adds " et
cetera," 3
He had expressed himself in a similar xvay in the shorter
Commentary, but did not think his expressions in that book
strong enough adequately to represent his ideas. 
As he constantly connects his statements with vhat he loo-ks
upon as the main contentions of St. Paul in the Epistles to the
Romans and the Galatians, we may briefly remind our readers
of the interpretation which the older theology had ever placed
upon them.
The Apostle Paul teaches, according to the Fathers and the
greatest theologians of the Middle Ages, that both Jews and
heathen might attain to salvation and life by faith. He proves
this by showing that the heathen vere not saved by the works
of nature, nor the Jews by the works of the Mosaic Law ; but he
does not by any means exclude works altogether as unnecessary
for justification. In the important passage of the Epistle to the
Romans (Rom. i. 17) where Paul quotes the words of Habacuc :
" The just man liveth by faith," there was no call to define more
clearly the nature of justifying faith, or to explain to what extent
it must be a living faith showing itself in works in charity and
in hope. To exclude xvorks from faith, as Luther assunes him to
do, was very far from his intention in that passage. Nor is this
idea involved in the saying which Luther so frequently quotes
(Rom. iii. 28): " We account a man to be justified by faith
without the works of the law," for here he merely excludes the
works " of the law," i.e. according to the context such works as
do not rest on faith but precede faith, whether the purely out-
xvard works of the Mosaic ceremonial law, or other natural works
done apart from, or before, Christ. We shall speak later of
Luther's interpolation in this passage of the word " alone " after
" faith " in his translation of the Bible (see vol. v., xxxiv. 3).
Vhen St. Paul elsewhere describes more narrowly the nature
 Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 733, where a thorough examination is made
of the certainty of salvation assumed in t.his system.
 Ibid., p. 735. a Cp. M6hler, p. 139.
 K6stlin-Kawerau. 1, p. 275.

BERNHARDI'S DISPUTATION 311
side. Amsdorf sent a copy of the theses to Erfurt in
order to elicit the opinion of the professors there. But,
fcariug lest the storm he foresaw might bc directed against
Luther, hc deleted the sul)crscription bearing his name
(" Sb eximio viro lartio Lutlero .4gstiaiao," etc.).
At thc Disl)utatiou Luther presided, a fact which is all the
more significant vhcn wc remember that hc was not at that
time Dean.
[.Among the theses to bc debated one runs as follows:
Man is absolutely unablc by his own unaided efforts to keep
the commandments of God ; hc merely seeks his own, and
what is of the flesh; hc himself is " vanity of vanities"
and makes creatures, who in themselves arc good. also to
bc vain ; hc is necessarily under thc dominion of sil, " hc
sins cvcn vheu doing the best hc can ; for of himself hc is
unable either to will or to think. ''
It is not surprising that theses such as this agaiu roused
the antagonism of the followers of thc old theology. Some
of Luther's former colleagues among the Erfurt monks con-
sidcred thcmscl'es directly chalIcnged. Trutfcttcr and Usin-
gen, tvo esteemed professors at Erfurt, having dared to point
out the difference between these theses and the Catholic
teaching as expressed in the works of Gabriel Biel, Luther
vrotc to theil- Superior, Johanu Lang: " Let them alone,
let your Gabrielists marvel at my 'position' (i.e. at the
theses), for mine too (i.e. Biel's Catholic-nfiuded supporters
a.t Wittenberg) still continue to be astonished." " Master
Amsdorf formerly belonged to them. but. is now half con-
crtcd." " But I won't have them disputing with mc as to
whether Gabriel said this. or Rq)hacl or Michael said that.
I knov what Gabriel teaches ; it is commendable so long
as hc does not begin speaking of Grace, Charity,
Faith and Virtue, for then hc becomes a Pclagian, like
Scotus, his master. But it is not necessary for mc to speak
further on this matter here. ''
In the same letter hc deals somc vigorous blows at Gratian
and the highly esteemed Peter Lombard ; according to him
they have made of the doctrine of penance a torment rather
than a remedy ; they took their matter from the treatise
" On True and False Penance," attributed to St. Angustinc ;
 " XVerke," ,Veim. ed., 1, p. 145 ff.
 Letter of 1516, probably September, " Briefwechsel," 1, po 55.

814 LUTHER THE MONK
doctrine. ''1 That itwas an open chal!cnge admits of no doubt.
Reticence and hulnility were not among Lnthcr's qualities.
It would bc to misrepresent him completely wcrc wc to
assign to hiln, as special characteristics, bashfulncss,
tilnidity and lovc of retirement ; however much he himself
occasionally claims such virtues as his. On the other hand,
hc also assures us that no one can say of him that he wished
the tllescs of this Disputation to bc merely " whispered in
a corner."
With this impulse to bring his new doctrines boldly
before the world may bc connected his taking, about this
tinle, in one of his letters thc name Elcuthcrius, or Free-
spirited. This was his way of rendering into Greek his
name Luther, agreeably with the customs of the time.
Only a fcw wccks after the second Disputation which wc
havc been cousidcring, hc camc forward with his Indulgence
theses against Tetzcl, of which the result was to be another
great Disputation. Disputations seemed to him a very
desirable luethod of arousing sympathy for his ideas;
these learned encounters with his opponents gave him a
good opportmfity for disl)laying his fiery temper, his quick-
wittcdncss, his talent as an orator, his general knowledge, and
particularly his familiarity with the Bible.
But this is not yet thc place to discuss the Indulgence
theses against Tetzcl.
The better to appreciate the state of Luther's mind at the
time when he was becoming settled in his new theological
principles, we may bc permitted to consider here, by antici-
pation, another great Disputation on faith and grace, that,
namely, of Itcidclbcrg, which took place after the outbreak
of Luther's hostilities with Tctzcl. In comparison with thcsc
questions, the Indulgcncc controversy was of Icss importance,
as wc shall have occasion to scc ; it was in reality an acci-
dental occurrence, though one prcguant with consequences,
and, as it turned out, the most decisive of all. The common
idea that the quarrel with TctzcI was the real starting-point
of Luther's whole conflict with the Church is utterly unten-
able.

 Plitt, " Luthers Leben," Leipzig, 1883, p. 69.

THE HEIDELBERG DISPUTATION 315

3. Disputation at Heidelberg on Faith and Grace. Other
Public Utterances
The Disputation at IIeidelbcrg took place on April 25,
1518, about six months a.ftcr the nailing up of tbc theses
against Tctzcl. A Chapter of the Augustiuiaa Congregation
held ia that town afforded the opportuaity for this Disputa-
tion.
To make use of the Chapters for such learned celebrations
was nothing unusual, but. the selection of Luther to conduct
the theological discussioa, at a time when his teaching on
Grace and his Indulgence theses had aroused widespread
comment aud cxcitcmct, ad whc an cxmniaatio of his
conduct was pcading in the Order, was very sigaificant.
Among the delegates of the priories present at. the ['haptcr,
all of them choscu from the older and more respected monks,
there was clearly a majority in favour of Luther. Another
proof of this fact is, that at the Chapter, Johann Lang, ho
was entirely of Luther's vay of thinkig, was chosen to
succeed him as Rural Vicar on the expiry of Luther's term of
service. Staupitz was confirmed in his dignity, though his
own attitude and his pcrsistct blind prejudice in favour of
Luther must have been known to all. It appears that
Luther's controversy xvith Tctzcl was not even discussed in
the Chapter ; 1 at any rate, we hear nothing whatever of it,
nor even of ay difficulties being raised as to Luther's
position in the much more important qucstiou of justifica-
tiou, although strict injunctions had already bccn sent to the
Order by the Holy See to place a check on him. and dissuade
him from the course he was pursuing. 
If, moreover, wc bear in miud the character of the theses
at this Disputation, which went far beyond anything that
had yet appeared, but were nevertheless advocated before
all the members assembled, we cannot but look upon this
uuhappy Clmpter as the shipwreck of the German Augus-
tiuian Congregation. At. the next Chapter, which was hehl
after an interval of two years, i.e. sooucr thau was customary,
Staupitz received a severe reprimand from the General of the

x Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 315.
= Klkoff, " Forschmgen zu Luthers r6nischem lrozess, '' 1905,
p. 44 seq. Pstor, ",_History of the :Popes," English translation,
volume vii., p. 361 ft.

316 LUTHER THE MONK
Order and at last laid down his office as Superior of the
Congregation. 1 tlis weakness and vacillation had, however,
by that time already borne fruit.
Leonard Bcyer, all Augustinian, another of Luther's
youthful pupils, was chosen by hiln to defend the theses at
tIcidclbcrg under his own supervision. The Disputation
was held in the Lecturc-rooln of the Augustinian monastery
in the town. Among the nmnerous guests present were
the professors of the University of Heidelberg. They were
not of Luther's way of thinking, mid rather inclined to join
issue in the discussion, though in general their dcmeanotlr
was peaceable; one of the younger professors, however,
in the course of the dispute voiced his disagreelncnt ill an
interruption : " If the peasants hear that, they will
certainly stone you."
Among those present., four young theologians, who at a
later date went over t.o the nev faith and beemne its aeti,c
prolnoters, followed with lively interest the course of the
discussion, in which Luther himself frequently took part;
these were 5Iartin Bueer, an eloquent Dolniniean, afterwards
preacher at Strasburg and a close friend of Luther ; Johmm
Brenz, a 5Iaster of Philosol)hy, who subsequently worked
for the new teaching in Swabia; Erhard Sehnepf, who
became eventually a 1)reacher in Wtirttemberg, and Theobald
Billieanus, wholn the theologians at tIeidelberg who
relnained faithful to the Church summoned to be exalnined
before theln on account of his lectures, and who then was
responsible for the apostasy of the town of N6rdlingen. The
Disputation at tIeidelberg had a great influence on all
these, and rendered them favourable to Luther.
The first named, lIartin Bueer, full of enthusiasm for
Luther, inforlned a friend, that at the end of the Disputation
he had completely triumphed over all his opponents and
roused in ahuost all his hearers adlniration of his Iearning,
eloquence, and fearlessness. 
If, however, we consider the theses from the theological

x Kolde, p. 327.
 Bucer to Beatus 1R.henanus, May 1, 1518, in the Correspondence
of Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Horawitz and IIartfelder, Leipzig, 1866,
p. I06 f. Also in " Relatio historica de disputatione Heidelbergensi ad
Beatum Rhemnum," printed in the "Introductio in hist. evang." by
D. Gerdesius, Gr(ningen, 1744. Supp., p. 176. Cp. " Luthers Werke,'
Weim. ed., 1, p. 352. " Opp. Lut.. var.," 1, p. 385.

318 LUTHER THE MONK

law, vhich the reader has before remarked in Luther ; that fear
which Catholic teaching had hitherto represented as the beginning
of conversion and justification.
Utterances (lrawn from that mysticism into vhich he had
phmged and the language of which he had at that time made his
own, are also noticeable. /-Ic speaks at the Disputation of the
annihilation through which a nmn must pass in order to arrive at
the certainty of salvation (a road which is assuredly only for the
fev, whereas all stand in need of certainty) : "Whoever is not
destroyed and brought back to nothingness by the cross and
suffering, attributes to himself works and wisdom. But whoever
has passed through this annihilation does not pursue works, but
leaves God to work and to do all in him ; it is the same to him
vhether he performs works or not ; he is not proud of himself
when he does anything, nor despondent svhen God does not work
in him. '' He then proceeds, describing the absolute passivity
of his mysticism as the foundation of the process of salvation :
" He [who is to be justified] knows that it is enough for him to
suffer and be destroyed by the cross in order to be yet more
annihilated. This is what Christ meant when He said (John
iii. 7) : ' Ye must be born again.' If Christ speaks of ' being born
again,' it necessarily follows that we must first die, i.e. feel death
as though it were present."

Besides the antagonism to true and well-grounded fear, md
the mystical veneer, there is a third psychoIogical element
which must be 1)ointed out in the Heidelberg Theses, viz.
the uncalled-for emphasis laid on the strength of con-
cupiseence and man's inclination to what is evil, and the
insufficient appreciation of the means of grace which lead
to victory. This view of the domination of evil, which
must ultimately be favourable to libcrtinism, accompanies
the theoretical expression and the practical realisation of
his system.
In the Heidelberg Disputation we find in the proof of thesis 13,
already referred to : " It is clear as day that free will in man,
after Adam's Fall, is merely a name and therefore no free will at
all, at least as regards the choice of good ; for it is a captive, and
the servant of sin ; not as though it did not exist, but because
it is not free except for what is evil."  This Luther pretends to
find in Holy Scripture (John viii. 34, 36), in two passages of St.
Augustine " and in countless other places." I-Ie undertakes to
prove this in a special note, by the fact that, according to the
teaching of the Fathers of the Church, man is unable during life
to avoid all faults, that he must fall without the assistance of
grace, and that, according to 2 Timothy ii. 26, he is held captive
by the "snares of the devil." " The wicked man sins," he says,
 Concl. 24.  Cp. above, p. 202 ff.

320 LUTHER THE MONK

which leads to the love of the cross, which expresses itself in
submission, in salutary fear, in a striving after what is good
and which bears in itself the seeds of charity. She thus
exhorted the faithful to 1)chance, the 1)raetiee of good works
and a practical embracing of the cross. That was her
(2 ross.
" Theology of the TM "

The three more iml)ortant Disputations considcrcd above
were designated 1)y Luther himself as the " bcginling of the
evangelical busmcs.. He gave the title Ititium negocii
eratgelici to a eollcetion of the theses debated at these
Dislmtations which appeared in print at Wittenberg in
1538.  It is significant that the theses against Tetzel and
on Indulgences have no 1)lace in this collection of the earliest
" evangelical " doemnents.
While Luther was on his way back from IIeidclberg, in a
lcttcr to Trutfettcr his former profcssor, he submitted
certain thoughts on his own theological position, which nmy
well be deem(d his 1)rogl'amme for the future. To this worthy
man. who faih.d to share his vievs and had given him timely
warning of his errors, he says: " To speak plainly, my
firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible
unless the ecclesiastical laws, the Papal regulations,
scholastic theolcffy, 1)hilosol)hy and logic as they at present
exist, are thoroughly uproot(d and replaced by other
studies. I am so convinced of this that I daily ask the Lord
that the really lmre study of the Bible and the Fathers may
speedily regain its true position. ''
In this renmrkable letter, which is a curious mixture of
respect and disputatious audacity, Luther admits that. on
account of his teaching on grace, he is already being scolded
in public sermons as a " heretic, a madma.n, a seducer and
one possessed by ninny devils " ; at Wittenberg, however,
he says, at the University all, with the exception of one
licentiate, declare that " they had hitherto been in ignorance
of Christ and His gospel." Too many charges were brought
against him. Let them " speak, hear, believe all things of
him in all places," he would, nevertheless, go forward and
not be afraid. ere he does not pass over his theses against
Tetzel in silence ; they had, he says, been spread in a quite

Cp. " Werke," Veim. ed.. 1, p. 143, n.
Letter of May 9, 1518, " 13riefwechsel," 1, p. 187

THE INDULGENCE THESES 331
If we examine the theses more closely and watch the
bchaviour of their author after they were made public, there
appears to be no doubt that they were considered by him as
settled beforehand and not merely as tentative propositions.
Many of them, from the theological poiut of view, go ftr
beyond a mere opposition of the abuse of Indulgcnees.
Luther, stilnulatcd by eop.tradietin, had to some extent
altered his previous views on the uature of Indulgenecs, and
brought them more into touch wilh the fuldamental prin-
ciples of his erroneous theology.
A praetieM renunciation of the doctrine of Indulgences, as
it had been held up to that time, is to be found in the
theses, where Luther states that Indulgences have no value
in God's sight, but are merely to be regarded as the rc-
lnission by the Church of the canonical punishlncnt (theses
5, 20, 21, etc.). This destroys the theological meaning of
Indulgences, for they had ahvays been eonsidcrcd as a
remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a
remission which held good before the I)ivine Judgment-
scat.  In some of the theses (58, 60) Luther likewise
attaeks tile generally aeecpted teaching with regard to the
Church's treasury of grace, on which Indulgences are based.
Erroneous views eonecrning the state of purgation of the
departed occur in some of the propositions (18, 19, 29).
Others a.1)l)car to eontain what is thcohgieally ineorrcet,
and connected with his opinion regarding grace and justifica-
tion; this opinion is not, however, clearly set forth in the
list of theses.
Many of the statements are mere irritating, insulting and
cynical observations on Indulgences in general, no distinction
being made between what was good and what was perverted.
Thus, for instanee, thesis 66 declares the " treasures of
Indulgenees " to be simply nets " in which the wealth of
mankind is caught."-- Others again scoff and mock at the
authority of lhe ('hureh, as, for example, thesis 86. " Why
does not the Pope build tile Basilica of St. Peter ith his
own money and not with that of the poverty-stricken
fa.ithfnl, seeing that he possesses to-d.y greater riches than
the most wealthy Croesus ? "
In order that a certain echo of the author's mystical
 Cp. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the 41 propositions of Lut.lmr condenmed
in 1520.

THE INDULGENCE THESES 333
"A Sermon Oll Indulgences and Grace," which contains
statements yet more vehcmcut and seditious. Ahnost at
the same time, and in the greatest haste, he put on paper the
weighty " lcsolu/ions " on his theses, written in Latin
for the benctit of the more learned. The latter alpCal'ed in
print in the spring of 1518.
Meanwhile, at the bcgim6ng of 1518, the Arehbishol of
Mavcncc had forwarded to Rome an account of the nlovc-
merit which had bccn started and of the Monk's theses.
As a result of this step the Pope, Leo X, on February 3,
instructed P. Gabriclc della Volta, Vicar to the Gcucral of
the Augustinians, to seek to turn Luther aside from his
erroneous views by letter ad by the admonitions of honest
and h'arncd men; dcla.v might fan the Slm.rk into a llamc
which it might bc impossible to extinguish. 1
There is m) doubt that instructions to this effect were
despatched by Volta to Staupitz, and probably other
measures were contemplated at the apl)roaching ('haptcr of
the German Augustinian (ongrcga.tmn at Heidelberg; the
calming of tim storm was a duty incumbent primarily on
the Order itself, and the Holy See accordingly decided to
act through Luther's immcdi:ttc superiors. Unfortunately,
nothing whatever is known of any steps taken by the Order
a.t this early stage. At the Heidelberg Chapter, which was
held towards the end of April (above, p. 315) the election of
a new Vicar-General of the Congregation to which Luther
belonged had to take place ; a ncv Rural Vicar had also to
bc elected in place of Luther, as the latter had now com-
pleted his term of office. It seems plain that Staupitz and
the large party who favoured Luther wished to act as gcutly
as possible and not to interfere in the movement beyond
making the necessary change in the person of the Rural
Vicar.
After Luther had received the summons to Heidelberg,
the Elector wrote to Staupitz a letter dated Friday in

x Cp. Pastor, "History of the Popes," volume vii., English trans-
lation, p. 361. Kalkoff, "Forschungen zu Luthers rOnaischem Prozess,"
Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., a.nd " Zu Luthers rOmischem Prozess: Das
Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther," in " Zeitschrift
fir Kirchengesch.," 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. ibid., p. 368 ft., on the
Dominicans. Both authors shottld be consulted for the subsequent
history of Rome's intervention. The Papal letter in ]3embi, Episto!ce
Leonis X, 1, l fi, n. 18.

33= LUTHER THE MONK

Easter week, with a request to see that Luther, on account
of his lectures, "shall returu here at the very earliest and not
be delayed or detained." 1 Vo cannot infer from this or
from the Ele('tor's letter of safe eon(luet for Luther himself,
that measures agabst him were antieipatcd ;t the Chapter.
These (locumcnts merely 1)rove the cxcel)tiolml favour
which Luther enjoyed with the rcigniug Prince.
Luther strutted from Wittcnbcrff on April 11. Being a monk
hc had to make the journey on foot as far as Wiirzburg ;
after having been hosl)itably entertained by the Bishop,
Lorenz yon Bibra, who was very well disposed towards him,
he proccc(lcd to I[eid('lbcrg by coach, together xvith Johanla
Lang and some other monks. The Chal)tcr re-elected
Staupitz and made Johami Lang Rural Vicar in Luther's
stead, a. (.hdcc which, as already hinted, exl)rcsscd approval
rather than (lisal)l)roval of what Luther had done. It was
also very significant of the position ado])tcd 1)y the Augus-
tini:m Congregati(m, that Luther should have bccu per-
mitted to preside at the I[cidclbcrg Disputation. lie
advanced the theses, which have already bccn discussed
(above, 1 ). 317), containing the denial of frcc xvill, i.e. the
most iml)ortant clement of his new teaching, and entrusted
their (lcfencc to Master Leonard Bcycr, an Augustinian of
Wittenberg, who conducted the debate iu the presence of the
assembled Clm.ptcr and 1)rofcssors of I[cidelberg University,
who had also been invited. It is remarkable that the
question of Indulgences, which was so greatly agitating
the minds of all. was not touched upon in the Disputation.
Perhaps it was thought better, from motives of 1)rudcnce,
to avoid this subject altogether at Heidelberg.
At the bcgiuning of May Luther returned to Vittcnbcrg
by way of Wiirzbm-g and Erfurt. Itc took advantage of his
stay at Drcsdcu to preach a sermon 1)cfcrc I)ukc George
and his Court ou July 25, 1518. In this sermon hc spoke
in such a way of " tim truc understanding of the Word of
God." of the " Grace of Christ and ctcrual Prcdcstilmtion,"
and of the overcoming of the " Fca.r of Gd," that the Duke,
who was a staunch adherent of the Church, was much
displeased, and often declared afterwards that such teaching
only made men presumptuous. The account of the sermon
and of Duke George's opinion is first found in the" Origines
x Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 313.

ON EXCOMMUNICATION 337
work in reply, entitled "Freedom of the Sermon on
Indulgence and Grace."
Fearing that the Pope wouhl exeonmmuieatc him, Luther
1)reaehcd a sermon to the inhabitants of Wittcnberg in the
early summer of 1518, possibly on May 16, on the power of
cxconmmnication ; what hc there lint forth excited wide-
spread comment aud irritation. This scrmou hc issued in
print, in August, but, in an amended forln. In it hc says
exconmmnieation is invalid it the ease of one who honestly
asserts the truth; nevertheless, it must bc obeyed. I[c
blames the all too frequent, use of exeommunieati()n, as
many good Churehmcn had done 1)eft,re him. It had 1)con
rccogniscd and taught from Patristic times that unjust
cxcommunicatiol did m,t dcl)rivc the exc(,mmunicatc of
a part, in the inward life of the ('hm'ch (anima ecclesia').
This Luther emphasises for his owu party purposes, but
without as yet setting up " a new view of the nature of the
Chureh."
Hc says, in a letter to his elderly friend Staupitz, that,
owing to the act, ion of his adversaries, " a new flame " would
surely bc kindled by this sermon, though he lind extolled the
power of the Pope in it, as was litting ; hc dcclarcs that hc
is the l)ersccutcd party; " bu Christ still lives and rcigis
yesterday, to-day and for ever. My conscience tells mc I
have taught the truth; but it, is just this which is hated
whenever its name is mentioned. Pray for me that I nmy
not rejoice overmuch nor be over-confident in myself iu this
trouble." He trusts to triumph, by printing the sermon
referred to, over all those who had listened to it with jealousy,
and maliciously misreprcscltcd it. Yet his mood is by no
means one of umnixcd joy ; hc ]tints in the same letter to
Staupitz at, mysterious interior sufferings which weigh upou
him " incoml)arably more ]wavily," so hc says, than the
fear of any measures llomc may take. At the same time
he is quite carried away by the idea that hc nmst, at any
cost, fight against the conteml)t which the Romanists arc
heaping upon the Kingdom of Christ. 
Meanwhile, in March, 1518, coml)laints had again been
carried to Ilomc by some Dominicans. Towards the middle
of June fresh official steps were taken by Rome against,
Luther's person, this time without the intervention of the
 May 1, 1518, " Briefweehsel," 1, p. 223.

340 LUTHER THE MONK
and wily tricks of the 1R, omans ; if he continued to incense him,
he would make free use of his wit and pen against him. 
In Iris reply to Prierias, Luther had referred his l)poncnt
to the lcsolntions to his Indflgcnec theses, which were
then already in print. Staupitz forwarded to Rome the
copy destined for the Pope. The letters to Staupitz aud
Leo X, which were incorporated in the work, were dated
May 30, 1518, though the printing was not finished before
August 21. As the ]Ics(dutions, Lulhcr's most important
work on the (lucstim of In(bflenees, obstilmtcly confirmed
the errors already expressed, more severe measures were
anticipated on the part of the Curia.
In his efforts to procure the appointment of judges to
try Iris cause iu Gcnmmy, Luther s(mght, through the Elcetor,
to make use of tim mediation of the Emperor Maximilian.
But the Emperor, who was earnestly solicitous for the
welfare of religion, and at the same time was anxious to
secure the Pol)e's favour on behalf of the election of his
grandson Charles as King of Rome, wrote to Leo X,
August 5, 1518, from Augsburg, that out of love for the
uuity of the faith he would support any measures the Pope
might take against Luther.
More severe proceedings against Luther were accordingly
set on foot in Rome, even before the sixty days were over.
These measures arc outlined in the Brief of Augus 23. 1518,
sent to Cardinal Cajetan, the Papal Legate at the Diet of
Augsburg.
Iu view of the notoriety of Luther's acts and teaching.
with the assistance of the spirituM and secular power,
('ajetau was to have him brought to Augsburg; should
force have to be used, or should Luther uo rceaut, theu
Cajctan was to lmnd him over to Rome for trial and punish-
ment ; he himself therefore was not to be the actual judge,
but only to receive Luther's recantation. In the event of
his l)reseuting himself voluntarily at Augsburg and recanting,
so ran the instructions, Luther was to find pardon and
mercy. Should it be impossible to procure his appearance
at Augsburg, theu the measures provided by law and
custom for such cases were to be enforced; he aud his
followers were to bc publicly exeonmmuieated, and the
authorities in Church and State were to be forced, if ncees-
 KOst.lin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

344 LUTHER THE MONK

This view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence,
and Luther was not justified in asserting at a later date that the
Pope had actually taught this. 1 Great theologians, such as
Cardinal Cajetan, for instance, even then expressed themselves
against such a view, which now is universally reeognised as
untenable. It was the wish of Cajetan that no faith should be
given those preachers who taught such ext.ravaganees. "Preachers
speak in the name of the Church,"2 he wrote, " only so long as
they proelain the teaching of Christ and the Church; but if
for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know
nothing and which is only their own imagination, they cannot
be regarded as mouthpieces of the Church ; no one must be
sm'prised if such as these fall into error." It is true, however,
that even the more highly plaeed Indulgence Commissaries did
not scruple, in their official proclamations, to set forth as certain
this doubtful seholastie opinion. It is no wonder that Tetzel
in his popular appeals seized upon it with avidity, for, in spite
of eertain gifts, lie was no great theologian, lie not only taught
the certain and immediate liberation of the soul in the above sense
but also the erroneous proposition that a Plenary Indulgence
for the departed eould be obtained without contrition and
penanee on the part of the living, simply by means of a money
pasanent.
Some of Tetzel's lnore reeent ehmnpions have insinuated that
the unfavourable opinion concerning his teaching rests merely
on witnesses who reported on his sermons from hearsay without
having themselves been present. As a matter of fact, however,
the aeeusat.ions do not rest merely on such testimony, but more
espeeially on Tetzel's own theses, or " Anti-theses," as he called
them, on his "Vorlegang " against Luther and on his second
set of theses. This is reinforeed by the offieiM instruetions on
the Indulgence to xhieh he was bound to eonform. That a
money payment alone is necessary for obtaining an Indulgenee
for the departed is indeed stated--though wrongly--in the
instructions of Bomhauer and also in those of Areimboldi and
Albert of Brandenbtlrg. The Anti-theses above lnentioned were
publicly defended by Tetzel on Jmmary 20, 1518, at the Uni-
versity of Frankfort on the Oder; they thus belong to Tctzel,
though in reality they were drawn up by Conrad Vimpina, a
Professor of Theology in that town. Paulus published a new edition
of the Anti-theses, which were ah'eady known, from the original
broadsheet which lie discovered in the Com't Library at Munich. a
Four witnesses to the inaeeuraey of Tetzel's serlnons must be
mentioned: firstly, the Town Clerk of G6rlitz, Johann I-Iass;
then Bertold Pirstinger, Bishop of Chiemsee and author of the

 " Verke," Erl ed., 65, p. 78 : " The Pope had stely commanded
the angels to carry forthwith the souls of the departed to heaven." Just
as Tetzel taught : " As soon as the penny rattles in the box, the soul
flies straight from Purgatory to Heaven."
" November 20, 1519. "Opuscula," Lugd., 1558, p. 121.
Paulus, " Tetzel," p. lfiS.  1bid., p. 171 f,

THE TETZEL LEGEND
" Tewtsche Theologey "; thirdly, the Saxon Franciscan Franz
Polygranus; and lastly, Duke George of Saxony. They confirm
the statements taken from the above sources, and though their
assertions do not rest on what they themselves heard, yet they
may be considered as the echo of actual hearers.
In connection with the above " horrible, terrible articles "
taken from Tctzcl's teaching, Lnthcr makes a statement
with regard to his own position and knowledge at that tinc,
which, notwithstanding the sacred alIirmation with which
he introduces it, is of very doubtful veracity.
" So truly as I have been saved by my Lord Christ," hc
says of the beginning of the Indulgence controversy in 1517,
" I knew nothing of what an Indulgence was, and no more
did anyone else." 
It is possible that in 1541, when, as an elderly man, he
these words, they may have appeared to him to be true, but the
sources from which history is taken demand that he himself as
well as his Catholic contemporaries should be protected against
such a chaxge of ignorance. His assertion has been defended
by some Protestants on the assumption that hi ignorance was
only concerning the recipients of the revenues proceeding from
the Indulgence. But why force his words ? They refer, as the
whole context shows, to the theological doctrine of Indulgences.
We need hardly remind our readers that the conviction that
Luther was thoroughly well acquainted with the Catholic doctrine
on Indulgences can be demonstrated by his own sermon on
Indulgences of the year 1516.  He there shows himself perfectly
capable of distinguishing between the essentials of the Church's
doctrie and the obscure and difficult questions which the theo-
logians were -ont to propomd in their discussions. With regard
to these latter, and these only, he admitted his uncertainty, as
did other theologians too. This was as little a disgrace to him as
the obscurity surrounding certain points was to the theology of
the Chm'eh. But it is quite another matter when he says he did
not even -laow what an Indulgence was. That no one else knew
either, is a statement disposed of by his own sermon of 1516 and
the various theological tracts on this subject. We need only
recall the explanations of Cardinal Cajetan, of the Augustinian
theologia and preacher Johann Paltz and of the continuator
of the work of Gabriel Bielso much studied among the Augus-
tinians--Wendelin Steinbach, who succeeded Biel as professor at
Tiibingen. Biel hinseL[ had written on the question of Indulgences
for the departed, and, in his appendices on this subject, had
expressed himself quite correctly.
Of the older theologians who preceded those we have men-
 " Verke," Erl. ed., 26, p. 53.
.o,, Verke," Weim. ed., l, p. 65 seq. For the contents, see above
p. 324 f.

FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES 349

to that of Magdeburg and also the expenses of the pallium, it
has now beeL ascertained (the fact is certainly no less to l%ome's
discredit) that, in reality, it was the loman authorities, who, for
finacial reasons, offered the Idulgence to the Archbisho !) ; Albert
was to receive fro,l the l,roceeds a compensation of 10,000 ducats,
which sum, iu addition to the ordinary fees, had been dcmauded
of him on the occasio, of his confirmation as Aa'chbisho l) of
Mayence on account of the dispcnsatiou necessary for coml)ining
the t'o AJ'chiepiscol)al Sees; one half of the proceeds of the
Indulgence was to be made over to him for the needs of the Arch-
diocese of Mayence, the other half was to go towards the reo
1)uilding of St. Peter's, for whi,.h object a collection had already
commenced iu other countries and was being prom,ted by the
l)reaching of the Indulgence.
Regarding the whole matter we learn the following dctail.q.
When Bishop Albert of Brandenburg, the brother of the
Brandcnl)urg Elector, Joachim I, was chosen Archbisho l) in
1514 by the Cathedral Chal)ter of 1Iaycnce he was faced by great
difficulties, financial as well as ecclesiastical. Was it likely that
he would obtain from Rome his confirmation as AJ-chbisho l) of
Mayence, seeing that he was already Archbishop of Magdebm'g
and at the same trine administrator of the diocese of Halber-
stadt ? XBould it be possible for him to raise the customary
large sum to be paid for his confnnation and for the pallium,
seeing that the Archdiocese of Mayence, owing to two previous
vacancies in rapid succession, had alrely been obliged to pay
this sm twice within ten years, and was thus practically bank-
rupt ? The sum necessary, which was the same in the case of
Treves and Cologne, amounted on each occasion to about 14,000
ducats. Vith regard to the confirmation-fees for the See of
Mayence and the expenses of the pallium, the Elector Joachim,
who, for political reasons, xas extremely anxiom to see his
1)rother in possession of the electoral dignity of Mayence, 1)romised
to defray the same, and thus the 5Iayence election took 1)lace on
5Iarch 9. The Axchbishop-elect borrowed, on May 15 of the same
year, 21,000 ducats from the ]?uggers, the great Augsburg
1)ankers--no doubt 'ith his brother's concurrence--in order to
1)e able to meet at lome the necessary outlay for his confirmation
and pallium.
Grave doubts, ho-ex'er, -ere entertained in the Papal Curia
as to -hether, according to canon law, the above bishoprics
might be held by the same person. Two of the offices in question
were archbishoprics, and, hitherto, in spite of the pre-alence of
the abuse of placing several croziers in one hand, two arch-
bishoprics had never been held by one man. Besides, the candi-
date was only in his twenty-fourth year.
An undesirable way out of the difficulty of obtaining the
necessary dispensation for holding the three ecclesiastical dig-
nities presented itself. An official of the lapal Dataria informed
the aubassador fron Brandenbm'g, that if Albert could be
induced to pay 10,000 ducats beyond the customary fees " this

PROCEEDS OF INDULGENCE 858
gulden " which Tetzel was said to have collected in one year are
a mere fiction. This tale was spread abroad in 1721 by J. E.
Kapp, and before that by J. Voltius (1;00), and would at)l)Car
to date from a chance word let fall by Paul Lang, the Bene-
dictine (1520). 1 We are, however, in possession of more authentic
details since an exact account was kept.
This account of the collections was made iu the following
manner : the money-boxes were opened and the contents counted
in the presence of witnesses, and the statement of the amount
certified by a notary. Representatives of both parties--Arch-
bishop Albert and the Fugger bank--were present, and kept an
account, half of the proceeds being paid by the Fuggers to the
Curia at t/ome for St. Peter's, and the other half to the Arch-
bisho I) of Mayence. It was a good thing and a guarantee against
mismanagement, that, at any rate in the case of the Mayence
Indulgence and that for St. Peter's, a reliable banking-house of
world-wide fame and conducted on business principles (even
though Luther styles the Fuggers cut-purses), should have thus
undertaken the sul)ervision of the accounts, however distasteful
it may seem to have left to bank oflfcials the distribution of the
Indulgence-letters from the very comnencement of the preaching.
How much did the proceeds amount to ? The Ma.yence
Indulgence was 1)reached only from the beginning of 1517 to
1518, the rise of the religious conflict interfering with its con-
tinuance. Schulte has, however, put us in possession of txvo
considerable statements of accounts concerning this period,
taken from the archives of the Vatican. That of May 5, 1519,
deals vith the Papal half of the Indulgence money which flowed
in from the various dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of
Mayence during 1517 and 1518, and was handed over by the
house of Fugger. This half amounted to 1643 gulden 45 kreuzer.
A like sum was handed over to Albert, as hes been 1)roved by
Schulte from a document iu the State archives at Magdeburg.
The other statement of account is dated June 16 of the same
year and places the stun total of the money received from the
ecclesiastical province of Magdeburg at 5149 gulden, according
to which each half amounted to 2574 gulden. If we assume
these sums, viz. 8436 gulden, to have been the gross proceeds
of the Indulgence enterprise, and if we take into consideration
the charges, comparatively high, for those engaged in the work,
then the amount cannot be described as large. Nor would the
Archbishop of Mayence have received entire the 4218 gulden
constituting his share, as, according to an arrangement made
with the Emperor, he had been obliged to make him a yearly
payment of 1000 gulden from the net lrofits. Thus only 3218
gulden would have remained to him. This would have com-
x N. Paulus, in the " K/Sln. Volksztg.," ibid., who gives the quota-
tions from Kapp and Volfius. Paul Lang says, in Pistorius Struvius,
'* Ier. gems. script.," 1, p. 1281, Luther, by his interference with the
preaching of the Indulgence, had, " ut lama fuit," caused the 1Rornans
in one year a loss of 100,000 gulden.

356 LUTHER THE MONK
man a liar." 1 /-Ie certainly did not. treat the matter lightly. To
attribute hypocrisy to him, as though he merely played a part.,
would be to do him an iujustice. It. is true there are recent.
writers who look upon him as a mere comedian, but it. would be
nearer the nm.rk t.o compare him to John Hus on his jom'uey to
the Counci! of Cousta.uec. Like him, he looked forward to death
without any iu(.linatim to recant. The th(mgbt l)assed through
him, he once said la.ter : " Now 1 must (lie," aud be 15ctured to
himself " what a sha.me that would be for his putouts."*
The two letters he addressed to Spalat.in and Melanchthon a
few days after his arrival iu Augsburg and before his first, examina-
tion, gave proof of the strauge mystical teudency which also
appears in the fragment mentioned above; they show how he
overcomes the inward voice which urges him to submit, and also
the iuq)ortunities of his anxious friends; they also show how,
even then, he was prepared to take a certain step, should the
dcmauds appear to him too great. : " I shall assuredly appeal to
a General Council. '' He admits that he was " wavering between
hope and fear " and, in order to stinmlate his own courage, he
draws a pi(.tm'e in these ]ett.ers of two of the terrifying qualities of
these " Italims " before whose rel)rcsent.ative (i.e. Cajetan) he is
to defend himself.
We lnust try to place ourselves in his l)osition and to appreciate
his prejudices.
In the first place, he relentlessly accuses his adversaries of
avarice and greed in everything; unfortunately his knowledge
of the Indulgence business had furuished sufficient cause for
reproaches and complaints against the Church authorities in that
respect., a Secondly, he finds fault, with the " ignorance " of his
opponents, and here he undoubtedly excites himself quite wrougly
and unnecessarily over their supposed senseless and one-sided
Scholasticism. In his letter to Melanchthon he exclaims, as
though to reassure himself: " Italy lies in Egyptian darkness,
her animosity to learning aud culture is unbounded. 80 greatly
do they misapprehend Christ and all that is Christ's. And yet
these are our teachers and nmsters in faith and morals. The
anger of God is thus fulfilled in us where He says : 'I will give
children to be their princes, and the effenfinate shall rule over
them.' Good-bye, my lhilip, and turn aside God's anger by holy
prayers." The supposed want of sympathy with learning and
culture of which Luther accuses the Italians in this letter to lhilip
Melanchthon is sin-ely most untrue, and was no doubt intended
to strengtheu Melanchthon, the weak and wavering I-Iumanist,
in his allegiance to Luther's party, for Luther, notwithstanding
his anxieties, had not lost his cunning. The reloroach against
 " Briefwechsel," l, p. 238.
* " Colloquia," ed. Bindsefl, 2, p. 175.
a To Spalatin from Augsburg, October 10, 1518, " Briefwechsel,"
1, p. 242.
 Ibid., " Ecclesia Romana a.m'o insatiabiliter eget et vorando assidue
sitim auger."

THE AUGSBURG TRIAL 357
Italy and Rolne, where at that time Hmnanism was flourishing
as nowhere else, can at lnost only apply to the stiffness of the old
debased Scholasticism, and perhaps to a certain backvardness in
biblical studies. Such blelnishes afforded hiln a welcome handle.
" I will rather perish," he assm'es Melanchthon, the enthusiastic
scholar, " than withdraw lny true theses and help to destroy
learuing." " I go, should it please the Lord, to be sacrificed for
you and your young men."
He still cliugs to the idea of being one with the Church in his
theological views. " If they can prove to me that I have spoken
differently from what the Holy l/oman Church teaches, I will at
once pronounce sentence against myself and beat a retreat, but,"
he adds, "there lies the knot." x A knot tied by himself. Strange,
iudeed, is the lnethod he proposes for cutting it: "If that
Cardinal [Cajetan] insists on the private opinions of St. Thomas
more strongly than is colnpatible with the doctrine and authority
of the Church, I shall not yield to him until the Chm'ch withdraws
from her earlier standpoint upon which I have taken u 1) my
position."
Hov greatly the applause with which he was lneetiug every-
where worked Ul)On him psychologically, confirming him in his
resistance, came out clearly at Augsburg.
It was only on this journey and at Augsburg itself that he
became aware what a celebrity his action had made him. He
alludes to this in the above-mentioned letter to Melanchthon,
where he also reveals a flattering self-colnplacency : " The only
thing that is new and  onderful here is, that the to n rings with
my name. All want to see the man who, like a new Herostratus,
has -ldndled such a big blaze."
Cardilm.1 ('ajctan, after making vain rcl)rcscntations to
Luther, finally demanded the withdrawal of two pro-
positions which hc had l)lainly taught and acknowledged
as his. The fir.t was his denial that thc treasure of the
merits of Christ and thc saints was thc foundation of
Indulgences ; the second was the statement which appeared
in the " Ilcsolutions," that the sacraments of the Church
owed their efficacy only to faith. These werc points in
which hc had manifestly deviated from the Catholic teaching
and, to boot, matters of supreme doctrinal ilnl)ortancc ; as
a professor of theology Luther, moreover, had bound himself
to submit to the teaching a.uthority of thc Church.
IIis final answer to thc Pal)fl legate was, that hc could not
recant unless he were convinced that he had said soniething
against Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the
Papal definitions, or sound reason.
Then followed his falnous secret flight from Augsburg to
x In the letter quoted to Spalatin, p. 240 f.

POPE WORSE THAN TURK 359
In feverish haste, without awaiting the result of his first
apl)cal, hc 1)ublishcd, November 28, 1518, a new a.1)pcal to a
future General Council.
An al)l)cal to an (;cumcnical Council was 1)rohibitcd by
old laws of the Church, because, at the COlnmcnccmeut of
ally movement directed against tile authority of tile Church,
it appeared likely to render all efforts for the eoml)osilg of
differeuecs illusory. It was rightly felt that whoever came
in eouflict with the Church would nmke every effort to
reserve the decision of his cause to some future Council,
more especially whcu he is able meauwhile to devote himself
freely to the furtherance of his ideas, and when the speedy
stlnllllOlliug Of a Council is very doul)tful. Tile claim
that all (Ecumcuieal Council should be called to 1)ronounee
upon every ncxv ol)ilfiOn was so extravagant that the
prohibition found general al)l)roval.
At the time of Luther's advent on the scene tile prospect
of a General Council, owing to the disscnsious among the
Christian Powers, had retreated into the far distance, and
even though it had been possible for the bishol)s throughout
the whole world to assemble, the meeting, according to
ancient custom and the rcgulatious of canon law, would have
taken place under the Pope's l)rcsidcncy. Even in this event
Luther can, aeeordiugly, have cherished but small hol)e of
winning the day.
IIis deep distrust of Rome we find expressed in the letter,
written almost simultaneously, to his trusted friend Wenee-
laus Link, the Nuremberg Augustinian, to whom he was
forwarding his account of what had taken place at Augsburg
C4cta :4ugustana): " My 1)en is giving birth to much
greater things than these lcta. I kuov not whence these
thoughts eome to me ; the cause [i.e. the conlliet], to my
thinking, has not vet commenced in earnest and much less can
these gentlemen from Rome look to see the end. I shall
send my little works to you so that you may see if I am
right ill surmising that the real Anti-Christ whom Paul
describes (2 TheWs. ii. 3 ft.) rules at the Roman Court. I think
I can prove that to-day he is worse than the Turks." 
Whoever could speak in this way had already cut himself
adrift or was on the 1)oint of so doing.

 On December 11, 1518, "' Briefwechsel," 1, p. 316.

362 LUTHER THE MONK

In the book in question, where he treats of the Sixth
Commandment, he is very severe and exact, indeed, rather
too exact and detailed in his cnunmratioli and dclmnciation
of the various kinds of sins of the flesh, lie speaks with
rhetorical Clnl)hasis and, it must be admitted, with a wealth
of earnest thmght, agaiust the habit of filthy talking which
was gaining ground at that time.  IIere, for cxalnl)lc, after
the most solemn waruings against giving scandal to the little
ones, he lets fall these golden words with regard to reform :
" If the Church is to blossom again, the begilming must be
made by a earcful training of the young. '' Among other
things, Luther treats of the total)rations which the devout
mau abhors and nmst al)hor, although he can never escape
them, and gives vent to the paradox: " True chastity is
therefore to be found in sensuality, and the more filthy the
sensuality, the lnorc beautiful the chastity, ''a surely a
delightful instance of our author's propensity to mmsual
hmguagc. Solnewhat obscurely, indeed, he aIso speaks
against the freedom of the will to do what is good; Paul
invokes the mercy of God against the temptatiou " in the
body of this death" (lloln. vii. 24 f.), and he, Luther,
would lmnent over the " poison of death within him."
" Vhcrc then are those who vaunt their free will ? Why
do they not set thcmsch'es free from eoneupiseeuee as soon
as they please ? Why will they not, yea, why are they unable
even to will ? . . . Because their will is already elsewhere,
dragged away as a captive. ''a

4. The Disputation of Leipzig (1519). Miltitz.
Questionable Reports
The Leipzig Disputation, which colnmenccd on June 27,
1519, and the origin and theological course of which has
been often euough depicted, as was to be expected, merely
induced Luther to proceed yet further with his revolutiolmry
theology.
The Plcissenburg of Leipzig has become since the Disputa-
tion between Luther and Carlstadt on the one side and Eek
()n the other, a memorable lllOlltllllCllt of Gerlnan history.
The great hall of this castle belonging to Duke George was
hung with spleudid tapestries ; a guard of the eitizcus kept
 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 490.  Ibid., p. 494.
 Ibid., p. 486.  Ibid., p. 485.

LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 363
watch before the walls of the castle, for the Coul't, as well as
the city, wished to insure the safety of those conducting
the wordy tournament which was to be held in the public
name. In addition to the professors of the University of
Leipzig and the guests from Wittenberg, students as well as
masters, many others were present, brought together partly
by curiosity, partly by interest in one or other of the
religious parties. The Duke, the guests of distinction, a.nd
the sworn stenographers had special places assigned to them.
Two professorial chairs stood facing each other. On that
belonging to the Wittenberg 1)arty CarIstadt, who had
arranged the affair, took his scat and disputed with Eck
for four whoIe days on man's free will and its efficacy with,
and under, grace.
Then, on July -l, Luther succeeded him and at once
launched into the theological controversy ou the question
of the Primacy of the Pope. As in the case of Cu'lstadt,
Eek stood his ground without assista.nce until the Disputa-
tion closed on July 14.
The Acts of the debate were to have been submitted to the
Universities of Erfurt and Paris for decision as to the winner,
but this was never done. The final impression made ou the
minds of the audience was that Eek had borne away the
palm. He had repelled the often virulent attacks of two
adversaries vith untiring mental and physica.1 energy, and
had displayed throughout a more extensive and ready
a.equaintanee with the theologians, the decisions of the
Church, the Fathers a.nd the Bible than either of the repre-
sentatives of the new opinions. Of a powerful and iml)osing
exterior, with a strong sonorous voice, he dominated the
course of the Disputation by his cIear-hea.dedness, his com-
posure and deliberation, whereas Carlstadt was too hurried
and confused a.nd unable to produce the necessary positive
proofs, and Luther, by his over-confidence, his rhetoric and
the habituaI violence of his attacks on his enemies gave
umbrage to many. The greatest stumbling-block to
Luther's success lay in the fact that the principal point,
which was to be decisive for his standpoint towards the
('hutch, was still, even to himself, as Protestant writers
express it, " in process of inward development," whereas
" Eek could take his stand on a sound and solid basis." x
x K6slin-Kawerau, 1, p. 245.

366 LUTHER THE MONK

Luther's edition of the Latin Commentary on the Epistle
to the Ga]atians, which appeared in September, 1519,
assumed all the more importance in his eyes. In this work,
written in the language of the learned (abo'e, p. 306), he
undertook to defend o the widest basis and before cultured
men of every clime his doctrines concerning grace aud
salvation, faith and righteousness.
I{crc wc have a public manifestation not merely of the
doctrines which lay at the back of the schism he had
stirred up by his controversy with Tctzcl, but also of his
wrong new view concerning oly Scripture.
In the matter of style, Luther was more successful in his
shorter works, particularly in his German controversial
pamphlets. Writers who opposed him, such as Eck, Eraser,
Dungcrshcim, AL'cld, I[oogstraatcn, Pricrias bc readily
withstood in words full of fire and imagination, although his
aulnents, as a rule, left much to be desired and were not
atoned for by his passionate invective. is main contention,
voiced in a more or less coarse form, is, howc'cr, always the
following : the proofs which you adduce from the teaching
of the Church and the Fathers do not mo'e me because

unfortunate mistake he made was not to insist upon Luther's recanta-
tion (cp. S. Merkle, " Reformationsgeschichtliche Streitfragen,"
Munich, 1904, p. 51), contenting himself with Luther's illusory ex-
planation of the end of February, 1519 (" Verke," Erl. ed., 242. p. 10 ft.),
published as a pamphlet. In this Luther simply spea ks of the Papal
power as a thing of which the existence must be taken for granted, and
emphasises in general terms the dut.y of charity which forbids schism
without due cause! This statement has been erroneously regarded
by Catholics as an admission of the Primacy by Luther, as a " wonder-
ful confession which the evidence of the facts wrung fron the heretic."
With respect to this explanation, which, as Luther himself says, was
destined for the "simple people," K6stlin-Kawerau's "Luther-
Biographie," 1, p. 227, says : '" In this way did Luther fulfil his promise
[to Miltitz] of exhorting to obedience to Rome. He exhorts to sub-
mission to this power because, according to him, it merely extends to
externals. With regard to anything further, its origin, its character,
and its extent, he reserves to himself and to learned men generally,
liberty of judgment. Of the important assertions which he had already
made on this point in various passages in his works, none are here with-
drawn." And yet, in this remarkable document corposed at the
stigation of Miltitz, he calls himself "a submissive and obedient son
of the Holy Christian Churches in which, by God's help, I will die,"
and declares : " I may say with a clear conscience that I have never
imagfied anything [hostile] with regard to the Papacy or its power."
He is, nevertheless, as he even there states, sure of his own " rock,"
and ready to stand up for it like Paul, Athanasius, and Augustine, even
though he should be left quite alone. God is able to speak through one
against all, even as He once spoke through the mouth of a she-ass.

"PROVE ALL TIIINGS" 867

:Ih)Iy Scripture, upon which I take my stand, is above both
Church and Fathers.
By the IIoly Scril)turc he, lorcovcr, persists ill under-
standing his own intcrpl-ctation of the Bible. By a tragic
luistakc he ha.s come to confould his own personal and
altogether subjective interpretation with tile objective
" Word of God " in the Bible. Ill tile same way he makes
not the slightest distinction between the lncaning of the
" gospel," which he fancies he has discovered, and the actual
Gospel itself.
Catholics urged against Lut,her that the Church had been
entrusted wit,h the safeguardiug of the Holy Books, wit,h t,he
handing down of t,he canon of Script,ure and the correct inter-
1)ret,at, ion of t,he same, and that, from the earliest Christian t, imes,
t,he Fait,hfifl had always left, t,o the living Tradition, the General
Councils and t, he Supreme Teacher of the Church--the Vicar of
Christ, and inheritor of the powers of Peter--the final decision in
doctrinal quest, ions and t,he correct, and binding interpret,at,ion of
Holy Seript,ure.
What, Luther asserted, for inst,anee, in his final letter t,o
Dungersheim, brought the central dogma, nalnely, t,hat, of the
t,eaehing office of t, he Church, into still clearer light, : " You have
nothing else on your lips," he says to Dungersheim and t,o all
Catholics generally, " but, t,he words Church, Church, heretic,
heret,ic, and you will not admit that, t,he injunction : ' lrove all
t,hings, hold fast t,hat, which is good' (1 Thess. v. 21), applies t,o
any. But, when ve ask for the Church, you show us one man, t,he
lope, t,o whom you entrust, everything [i.e. all decisions on
matt,ers of fair,h], and yet you do not prove by one word that his
faith is unchangeable. Yet, we have discovered in the lope's
Decretals more heresies than any heretic ever invented. You
ought, t,o prove your standpoint and instead of this you always
st,art, from t,he same premiss."  Theologians, as a mat, t,er of fact,,
had never claimed for all the eont,ents of the Deeret,als a rank
among the solemn 1)ronouncements on faith. What, is, however,
more important, is that Lut,her places t,he individual above the
Church and the lrimaey appointed by God ; lie puts the Scrip-
tures in his hand, to interpret, as he will. He continues as follows :
" You ought, t,o prove t, hat t,he Church of God is with you and
nowhere else in t,he world. We want, the Scriptures for our judge,
but, you wish t,o be judges of the Script,ures." 
In t,his connect,ion, seeking to justify the bit, t,erness of his
polemics, lie unwitt,ingly gives an excellent portrait of himself:
" You misinterpret the words I speak, just, as t,he ass in your
midst [Alveld] is doing a.t the present, moment. This seems t,o be
the way with you people of Leipzig, you read without a.t,t,ent, ion,
 " Briefweehsel," 2, p. 163. On the date see K6st.lin-Kawerau, 1,
p. 258.  Ibid.

DRESDEN TALES 869

At the close of this chapter sonic remarks may perhaps
be permitted on certain mistaken or lnisundcrstood talcs
concerning Luther, which belong to this pcri,d.
The history of the sermon referred to a.bwc (p. 331,),
delivered by Luther at Dresden in July, 1518, iu the presence
of Duke George of Saxony has recently been presented to
Protestant readers in the traditional legendary form as
" portraying the whole history of the following centuries."
If it were really so supremely important, then we ought,
indeed, iu our narrative to ha.re put this sermon in a better
light and assigned it a very different position. As a matter
of fact, however, its contents are by no means of any great
moment and do not even justify its description as " the
trial sermon of the pale Augustinian monk."

Duke George of Saxony, so we are told in this uew and adorned
version of the incident, "had applied to the Vicar-Geueral of the
Augustinians, Staupitz, requesting that he would procure for him
an honest and learned preacher," and Staupitz thereuloon sent
him Luther " with a letter of reconnnendation in which he
described him as a highly gifted young man of proved excelleuce,
both as regards his studies and his moral character." As a
matter of faet, however, it is only known that Luther happened
to be in Dresden on July 25, 1518, on his way back from the
Heidelberg Chapter. As he usually did, he took advantage of the
op10ortunity afforded him of preaching. Of the letters of Duke
George or of Staupitz history knows nothing.
The sermon was delivered in the castle ("in castro ") in the
presence of the Court on the aforesaid day, which was a Sunday,
and also the Feast of James the Greater. t The text was taken
from the Gospel for the Feast in which our Saviour says to James
and his brother : " Ye know not what ye .k " (Matt. xx. 22).
On this text Luther, doubtless in his customary burning words,
described " the fooli.hness of people in their prayers, and what
the true object of prayer should be." This is what he himself
tells us.  He introduced among other things into the sermon a
story about three virgins, which, he says, was " quite theological."
According to another account, he did uot lose the opportunity of
expressing the ideas which dominated him, namely, that those who
listen to the Word of God with an attentive mind are true
disciples of Christ, chosen, and predestinated for life everlasting,
and that we must overcome " the fear of God " ; he no doubt
laid particular stress on faith and depreciated good works. It
does not seem necessary to assume that there were two different
sermons. " The evangelical certainty of Salvation, as against the

Luther to Spltin, Jnury 14, 1519, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 351
Ibid.

I,--q. B

CHAPTER X

LUTHER'S PROGRESS IN TIIE NEW TEACHING

1. The Second Stage of his development. Assurance
of Salvation
Two clcmcnts were still wanting to Luther's teaching--
the very two which, at a later date and till the end of his
life, he regarded as the corner-stone of the truth which hc
had discovcrcd--viz. Faith alone as the means of justifica-
tion, and the assurance of Divine favour, which was its
outcome. Both these elements arc most closely connected,
and go to make up the Lutheran doctrine of the appropriation
of salvation, or personal certainty of faith. In accordance
therewith justifying faith includes not only a belief in Christ
as the Saviour; I must not merely believe that He will
save and sanctify mc if I turn to Itim with humility and
confidence--this the Church had cvcr taughtbut I must
also have entire faith in my justification, and rest assured,
that without any work whatsoever on my part and solely
by means of such a faith, all the demands made upon me are
fulfilled, the merits of Christ appropriated, and my remaining
sins not imputed to me; such is 1)crsonal assurance of
salvation by faith alone.
The teaching of the Catholic Church, we may remind our
readers, never rccognised in its exhortation to faith and
confidence ia God, the cxistcucc of this " faith alone "
which justifies without further ado, nor did it require that
of necessity there must be a special faith in one's state of
salvation. Iu place of faith alone the Church taught what
the Council of Trent thus sums up: " We are said to be
justified by faith because faith is the begimfing of human
salvation, the foundation and root of all justification,
without which it is impossible to please God and reach the
blessed company of :His children." 
And insted of setting up a special faith in our own state
 Sess. 6, c. 8.
374

376 LUTIIER THE MONK

in the course of his gloomy and abstruse treatment of pre-
destination, hc had instructcd his hearers how they must
bc resigned to this uncertainty concerning eternity (p. 236 ff.).
In the ct of resigner.ion he perceived various signs of prc-
destinat.ion. He sys in the Commentary on Romans : " There
re three degrees in the signs of predestination. Some re connt
with God's Will, but re confident they re mnong the elect
do not wish to be damned. Others, who stand on  higher level,
m'e resigned and contented with God's rill, or t least wish to be
so, even though God should not choose  save them but to place
them amongst the lost. e third, i.e. the last and highest
degree, is to be resigned in very deed to hell if such be the Will of
God, u hich is perhaps the case with ninny at the hour of death.
in this way we become altogother purified fl'om self-will and the
wisdom of t.he flesh. ''
'" Terrible 1,ride prevails muong the hyl)ocrites and men of the
law, who, because they believe in Christ, flfink themselves already
saved and sufficiently right.cous," these claim to attain to grace
a.ud the Divine Sonship " by faith alone " ("ex fide tantam "'),
" as though we were saved by Christ without the 1)erfornanee of
any works or acts of our own " (" sic ut ipsi nihll operentur, nlhil
exhibeant de fide "). Such men possess too much faith, or rather
none at all. 
}Vhile he was thus wavering between reminiseences of the
Catholic teaching and his own pseudo-mysticM ideas on justifica-
tion and imputation, his mind must indeed have been in a state
of incessant agitation, so that uneasiness and fear became his
natural element. " As we are unable to keep God's eommand-
ments and are therefore always unrighteous, there remains
nothing for us but to be in constant fear of the Judgment (' ut
iudicium semper timeamus '), and to pray for pardon, or rather
for the non-imptting of our unmehteousness. We are to
rejoice, according to the Psalmist (ii. 11), before God on account
of His Mt,rey, but with trembling on aeeount of the sin hieh
deserves His Judement.
In 1525 he wrote: To leave man no free will for what is
good and to make him alt, ogether dependent on God's pre-
destination "seems, it is t.rue, cruel and intolerable ; countless
of the greatest minds of previous ages have taken offence at this.
And who, indeed, is there whom the idea does not offend ?
myself have more than once been greatly scandalised at it and
plunged into an abyss of despair so t.hat, I wished I had never
been created. But then I learned how wholesome despah" is and
how close it lies  grace." 
This he " learned," or thought he learned, through his
doctrine of assuranec of salvation through faith.
1 ,, Sehol. Rom.,'" p. 215.  Ibid., p. 132.
 Ibid., p. 124.
 Ia De servo arbitrio, "" Werke,'" Weim ed., I8, p. 719.

FIDUCIAL FAITH 383
It must also be borne in mind that the Monk, with his
pseudo-mystical ideas, cherished a gloomy conception of
God, and held the terrible doctrine of the absolute prc-
destilm.tion of the danmcd. I[aving wandered away frolll
the Catholic teaching, with his views on man's lack of free
will. and the theory of arbitrary imputation by God. hc
found no answer in his troubled conscieuce to the question
which weighed him down, nalncly, how to arrive at the
assurance of a Gracious God. Confusion and interior lmngs
of conscience for a while gained the upper hand.
Lastly, his peculiar morbid tendency to fear lnUSt also be
taken into account, for it. afforded an opportunity to the
Telnptcr to add to his confusion by raising difficulties
regarding the deficiencies of his new, scl[-ehoseu theology.
Adolph Hausrath in his Lifc of Luthcr cvcn spcaks of
periodical mcntal disturbanccs from which he snffcrcd during
the time he was a monk ;thc disturbing powcr inherent in
thc mouastie practiccs, so hc says, took possession of his
scnsitive nature with its strong feclings; Luther Olfly
escaped the danger of going nmd by bravely bursting the
fetters of the nmnastie lhfle and the Popish Faith. Iu the
strong inward eombats which Luther endured at a later
date IIausrath reeognises a return of this atIlietion. [u his
second editiou he has toned dowu this view of Luther's
periodical attacks of meutal illness out of regard for the
objections which had, not without reason, been nrged
against his statement. In Luther's ease, however, there is
no reason for assmning any " monkish mental disease," nor
can he be proved to have suffered from any disturbance
whatever of his mental functions at. any time of his life. 
But if we take it. that the night of the soul which he passed
through, whether in the lnonastery or during his later
struggle, had at. its basis a peeuliar physieo-lsyehie dis-
position revealing a want of normal inward stability, then
we can l)erhaps easily explain some other strange and at
first blush inexplicable 1)henomena which his ease presents.
At any rate, the fmdamental new dogma of the assuranee
of salvation was not the produet of a elear, quiet, calm
atmosphere of soul. It was born amidst unbearable inward
mental eonfusion, and was a frantie attempt at self-paeifiea-
 See volume vi., chapter xxxvi., "Dark-_side: of the Life of the
Soul," 4, 5.

FIDUCIAL FAITH 385
into the background than in the Resolutions ; he no longer speaks
of the above-mentioned magical production of the personal
assurance of salvation, by the formula of absolution, as by the
testimony of another; he now holds the absolute certainty of
justification to be present by faith even before this, whenever
a man is villing to submit himself, according to his instructions,
to the Sacrament of Ienance. 1 Thus faith alone and the assur-
ance of salvation were already present. The principal difficulty,
however, as he admits below (p. 389 f.), still troubled his mind. This
was the Justice of God, which haunted his conscience, though it
did not hinder his going forward.
The appeal he made to a General Couucil in November
and his " conjecture " of December, 151S, that the Pope
might be Autichrist, z were momentous indications that he
was eut.ting himself adrift from the authority of the Church.
At the same time he stripped the ideas he had hitherto held
on faith of everything that rcmiuded him of the traditional
teaching of the Church ; he trausf,rmed the faith necessary
for justification into a mere act of confidence in the merits of
Christ without any reference to the Sacraments, to the other
truths of faith, or to the Church, who is the guardian and
mouthpiece of faith. To lay hold upon the righteousness
of Christ with a sure trust is made to suffice for justification
and for the fullest assurance of salvation, without any of the
preliminaries and conditions on which he had formerly
insisted. This act., too, God alone operates in man, who
himself is devoid of all free will. Although he incident.ally
clothes t.he act of confidence with love, and even hints at
the good works a man may have performed previous to this
act, also requiring good resolutions for the future, yet these
are only additions which are really ilaeonsist.ent with his
idea. IIeneeforward fidueial faith appears to him as really
an isolated fact, an act of eoufidenee inspired by God merely
from IIis good pleasure and with no regard for any vork.
1 In the beginning of 1519 he gives instructions to the Faithful,
intended to shov them how to make a good use of Confession ("A
Short Instrttction how to make a Confession," " Verke," Weim.
ed.. 2, p. 57 ff ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 244 ft.). Even in March, 1520, he re-
published this little work in an extended form, "Confitendi Ratio,"
\Veim. ed.. 6, p. 154 seq. " Opp. Lat. var.," 4, p. 152 seq. (cp. JKSstlino
Kawerau, l, p. 278), where he recommends confession, merely warning
the penitent, " ut non fiducia confessiotis vel faciendce vel factce nitatur,
sed in solius Dei clementissimam promissionem tota fidei plenitudine con-
fidat, certissimus videlicet, quod, qui con/essro peccata sua promisit
veniam, promissionem suarn fidelissine prcestabit."
 To Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518, "Briefwechsel," 1,
p. 316.
I.--2 c

386 LUTHER THE MONK
A vast change of far-reaching consequence had taken place
in Luther's conception of the appropriation of the itstitia Dei,
hc had now reached an interpretation of the words istus ex
fide vivit and of the vholc meaning of the gospel, upon
which, notwithstanding the independence of his treatment
of doctrine, hc had never hitherto ventured.
Wc nmy well ask what event, what development, had led
up to this.
SaL'ation by faith alone and the absolutc assurance of
one's state of grace, wcrc taught by Luther quite openly in
:hc second course of lectures on the Psalms, which hc had
commenced in 1518 (perhaps at the end of the year), and the
beginning of which hc 1)ubli.hcd in 1519 with a 1)reface
addressed to the Elector Frcdcricl, dated March 27, 1519
(scc above, p. 285). This was the "Opertio,es i Psedmos,"
hi)on the publication of which hc was engaged until 1521, and
which was finally left unfinished.
This work he, cvcn at a later date, described as an entircL
true exposition of his actual teaching on justification. 
Other lectures, delivered at an earlier period, received
no such praise from him; on the contrary, hc never took
the trouble of having them printed, and does not even
mention them. Although the Commentary on Romans,
which wc have already studied, had advanced a considerablc
distance along the new lines of thought, nevertheless, at a
later date its tone appeared too Catholic to l)lcasc him ; it
did not contain the new creed " Credo me esse seIt'."
The same is truc of the earlier course on the Psalms, of the
lectures on Galatians, on IIcbrcvs and on the Epistle to
Titus. Luther, as a rule, was very read), to have his writings
printed, but these, after hc had entered upon the second
stage of his development, hc plainly looked upon as unripe
and incomplete.
Simultaneously with the printing of the new Commentary
on the Psahns he commenced that of another Commentary,
also consisting of lectures. This is the shorte" of the two
works on Galatians which he has left us in print (above,
p. 306 f.). This Commentary on Galatians, together with the
"Operetiones ia Psalmos," is the earliest witness to his new
and definiti'e conception of sola tides as an entire confidence
in one's justification.
x _Iathesius, " Aufzeichnungen," p. 75.

392 LUTHER THE MONK
passage of Paul's became to me in very truth the gate of
Paradise." lie adds that the reading of Augustine had strength-
ened him in his interpretation, and, " provided with better
weapons by means of this experience, I set about the exposition
of the lsahns for the second time "; this work was, however,
interrupted by the Diet of Worms.
Luther, it is true, does not speak here of the monastery
tower as the scene of his experience, but. this is described
quitc plainly in his other statements given below. In thcse
lhc privy situated above the " tIypocaustum " is mentioned
as thc place where the discovery took place. They at the
same time complete and confirm the account given in the
Prefacc of the antecedents of this ncv eulightcnment, i.e.
the immediately preceding terrors of God's avenging
justice, the time it happened, viz. when Luther was engaged
on the Psalms, and finally, the subject-matter of the
experience.
The accounts from Luther's own lips must bcre be con-
sidered collectively.
Not only do they correspond exactly with Luther's
condition of mind, a.s described above, but also, according to
the chronological account already giveu of the development
of his teaching, with the time he recommcnced his work on
the Psalms, 1518-19. which period Lnthcr expressly mentions
in the Preface as the date of the incident.  It is uot necessary,
indeed, when we consider the above description of the course
of his development, not possible, to assign an earlier date to
the incident, though some have recently 1)ushcd it back to a
time prior to his first exposition on the Psahns. Others, on
account of some minor inexactitudes which occur in the
principal account given in 1545 (see below, p. 399). hold it to
be a fanciful invention of Luther in his old age in which he
was merely summing up the resnlt of a long inward prccess.
If every circumstauce be calmly weighed the historian must
however, in the main, support Luther's account ; he is not
free to sacrifice the valuable sonrce of knowledge, of such vast
importance in arriving at a.n cstinaate of Luther's personality,
presented by these testimonies.
In what follows Luther's other testimonies to the same
effect as that contained iu the Preface, will be duly brought
forward and their peculiarities uoted.
 "Copi psalterium secmdo interpretari .... Eo amw (JMDXIX)
Jam redieram ad psalterium denuo iuterpretandum."

THE TOWER INCIDENT 395
Luther's pupil, Conrad Cordatus, iu recording the matter in
his diary is quite right in emphasising, in Luther's own words,
that the knowledge gained by the incident was : " Ergo ex lute
est iustitia et ex iustitia vita " ; this is also done in the German
Table-Talk, where we find a rather more detailed description of
the inference di-awn by Luther: " Then I became of another
mind and from that moment thought : We are to live as justified
by faith, and the Justice of God, which is His attribute, shall save
all who believe; these verses will no longer affright the poor
siuners and those who are troubled in conscience, but on the
contrary comfort them." .o
In the reference rnadc to the event in the Commentary on Genesis
(1540), the fact. that the just man lives by faith is also placed in
the foregn-ound, and in this ca.se we may safely rely on the
Commentary though it was not printed till after Luther's death. 
Here we read that it was the knowledge lie had acquired "under
the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost " that "our life comes from
faith " tliat had " opened out the whole of Scripture to him,
and heaven itself." This, according to the passage in quest, ion,
was the result of the " anxious work," which at the outset he had
devoted to the comprehension of Ionmns i. 17. ]y the use of
such an expression as " at the outset," " primum," the opening
word of the whole passage which speaks of his development, he
would appear to imply that it was then that the foundation was
laid of the gn'eat evangelical truth concerning faith. This agrees
with the title Mathesius bestows on his notes : " Occasion of the
re-birth of the gospel by means of the Doctor." Iu the passage
in question in the Commentary on Genesis the consoling faith
which he had been commissioned to teach is contrasted  ith the
" unbelief " prevalent in Popery, which has lost all experience of
this security. " They did not know that unbelief was a sin . . .
and yet conscience cannot find any real comfort in works. Let
us therefore enjoy the blessing of God which is now inparted
Luther's utterances so far have referred more to the
inward occasion, to the time and the subject-matter of the
experience from which the dogma of absolute assurance of
period from 1515 to 1516 occurred in Luther, who in his first Com-
menta.ry on the Psalms had been much more Catholic-minded. In
fixing chronologically the date of the experience described in the
Latin Prmfatio I have the fu'ther advantage of being supported by
Luther's clear and definite statement. As he esteemed his second
course on the Psalms so highly (see above, p. 386) and consigned the
first to oblivion, it is difficult to imagine that he mistook the one for
the other. On the other hand, a mistake as to the sequence of those
idea which had made an impression on him in his youth might easily
be explained by advancing years, like his mistakes concerning the time
when he first became acquainted with certain authors (for instsmce,
in this case, with Augustine).  P. 423.
" " Verke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 370. Cp. pp. 336, 404.
a See above, p. 388, n. 3.

400 LUTHER THE MONK

the discovery afforded him, passing from the storms of his
crisis into what he took to be a safe haven of peace.
The illusory talisman of absolute assurance of sah,ation
was the result of the second stage of his development.

3. Legends. Storm Signals
On looking back in later )rears upon tile course of his
spiritual progress ill the molmstery, Luther was unable to
distinguish clearly between the various stages of his develop-
ment. The incident in the tower, which had left the strongest
impression on his memory, drew the first stage more and
more into the foreground in his imagilmtion, so that in his
accounts lie assigns to it au undue prominence to the
disadvantage of tile two others. IIcncc tile want of clearness
noticeable ill his statements with regard to the same.
We find not merely obscurity, but actual error, particularly
in his aeeonnt of the traditional interpretation and that
which lie had himself begun to advocate of the Iuslilia Dei
(Rom. i. 17). Luther is, in this matter, the originator of the
great legend still current, even in our own day, which
represents hiln as a Columbus discovering therein the central
truth set forth by Paul; no one had been able to find the
key to the passage before his glance penetrated to the
truth. All the learned men of earlier times had said that
iustitia there meant the avenging Justice of an angry God.
As a matter of fact, in Luther's lectures on Genesis in 15[0-[1, 
it is asserted that all the doctors of the Church, with
the exception of Augustine, had luisunderstood the verses
Ilomans i. 16 f. ; Luther's Preface to his Latin works to
some extent presupposes the same, for he says that he had,
"according to the custom and use of all doctors" (" usu et con-
suetudie omnium doclorum doclus "), understood the passa.-e
as meaning that justice " by which God is Just and punishes
sin," and only Augustine, with whom he had made common
cause, had found the right interpretation (" iustitiam Dei
interpretatur, qua ,os Deus induit"), although even the
latter did not tcaell imputation clearly (see above, p. 392). 2
1 See above p. 388, n. 3. V'e can hardly assume that such a state-
ment was an error of the Notes ; it is more probable that Luther made
a mistake in his verbal delivery.
2 In other statements, such as that related by tteydenreich (above,
p. 393), he assumes that no doctor was able to supply him with the right
explanation : " No one came to open the door," etc.

Grisar Hartmann.
Luther.

BR
325